Is going to a t100 law school like Syracuse or Buffalo for example worth it? I've been told that if you don't kill the LSAT and get into a top ranked school, there's no point. I just keep getting so much mail from schools like Hofstra, etc, that I know are low-ranked schools... just don't know if I should even be considering them if my LSAT score isn't through the roof.
1
52 comments
I'd just like to add that every anecdote above mentions someone who graduated over 25 years ago. Since, the profession has undergone some pretty big structural changes and 2 recessions. Also, many more new law schools have opened and it's changed rankings a bit. Hastings, for example, was a much higher rated school back when Harris attended. Now, It's fallen significantly in the rankings in the last 15-20 years. Biden attending Syracuse 50 years ago just isn't comparable to someone attending today.
There's a good reason you're not hearing about John Doe C/O 2011 from Hofstra making it big. The reason is because their 2016 ABA disclosure lists a 73% employment rating. Buffalo Law at a 62% employment rating and Syracuse at a 59% employment. I think those figures speak for themselves. And they should give anyone possibly attending extreme pause. Something isn't right when almost a quarter or a half of graduates cannot secure ANY legal job. You could say it's the economy at large, but then you have to explain how 99% of NYU grads find jobs. So they're hiring; they just aren't hiring from those schools.
I think my advice would be to look into the schools you're considering assuming you'll graduate with median grades and ask yourself what that outcome would be? As @samanthaashley92715 mentions, markets in the Dallas area tend to hire from regional schools. And I know that there are other areas of the country where that's definitely the case too. There are plenty of non-T14 schools that may be very much worth attending. However, as others above have mentioned, it really depends on what your career goals are going forward.
Good luck!
Kamala Harris (Senator of California) went to U.C. Hastings School of Law. Hastings is currently ranked 54 on USN. I think this might answer your question :)
School ranking is fairly important for jobs, but as much as people like to say it is, it is not the end-all-be-all. You can be successful and go to a non-T14 school. A lot of it comes down to the individual.
For me Regional Rank matters. For example: You want to work in New Jersey, Seton Hall would be a lot more reliable than a school "ranked" higher on the left coast. Any time someone talks about "big law" (wtf is that anyway) I look at them a different way. Gotta remember, a lot of law school hopefuls are prestige chasers. I personally want to have a social life and not be a slave to a particular occupation because they're paying me "alot" or my loans are crazy. (and if you think a job paying you $150k+ and you going to happy hour :-(.....).
FYI: Stay away from TLS forum with this question. Those folks over there are extreme with the "dont bother being a lawyer if ________" rhetoric.
Do whats best for you. Namaste.
@elliottscott8814
I believe our disagreement is whether or not I advocate for lower ranking schools, and I think my post is self-explanatory.
Previously, You've expressed no opinion on what constitutes as the necessary condition for success and I've expressed no opinion on your financial analysis. If there was no opinion on a position, there isn't a point at issue. It's within the 7sage CC and I encourage you to check it out.
At this point, I do not believe any further continuation of this conversation would be constructive. You misrepresent, twist words, add and switch ideas, cheery pick my comments seem to just for the sake of arguing. Now, I'm not gonna make a thread titled "exposing seeking perfection", but in the spirit of not further hijacking OP's thread, I'm going to disengage myself now.
Best of luck with the journey. Sincerely.
Great examples above with important figures went to a relatively less known/ranked school. I'd also add Megyn Kelly to the list (not her fan tho lol) those are for sure examples/proof that top ranked law schools aren't necessarily the necessary condition for success. However, I do wanna point out that those were also different times, some of whom went to law school 30 plus years ago. We just went through the greatest downfall of law school admission (arguably still amid of it) and there is a reason for that. I certainly do not have the expertise to definitively diagnose this phonemomon as a mismatch between legal supply and market, but many seem to believe this is the case. That being considered, the schools and class ranking seems to really start making a difference going forward in job placement. Just thought we would at least keep that in mind.
Generally, I do believe T14 would make a difference, but it certainly isn't the end of the world if it's not. I believe we should all just do our best studying for the test and get in the best schools within our ability. Whatever school that might be, work hard and try to stay on top of everything, that's really the necessary condition for success in my opinion. So work hard or bust. :)
Joe Biden went to Syracuse Law. Ranked even lower than McKinney. There’s that!
@elliottscott8814
I agree with everything that you said with the exception of your name.
@uhinberg359 said:
@aaronkeegan92975 said:
Kamala Harris (Senator of California) went to U.C. Hastings School of Law. Hastings is currently ranked 54 on USN. I think this might answer your question :)
And Mike Pence went to Indiana (Mckinney, not Maurer) School of Law. I believe that McKineey is far lower than U.C. Hastings.
IU Mckinney has actually produced two vice presidents. And IU Maurer has had two Supreme Court Justices. My Hoosiers represent well.
@samanthaashley92715 said:
Hey,
I think going into a school that's not T-14 depends on what you want to do. As someone who worked at a really nice law probate/family firm in Downtown Dallas, sure you have your T-14 grads but we also had people who went to local well known law schools like Baylor and SMU. The only thing I would say about these lawyers is that they are really really good. The clients loved them and their work was extra-ordinary.
So I think it's fine to go outside T-14 but you may want to do research on how do these graduates from their law schools fare in getting jobs. Dallas has an excellent market and the local law schools there have a very strong alumni network. But I never met a lawyer there that neither went to T-14 nor to a law school that was well respected locally.
Great point. This is true of many regional markets. But with an important caveat: Whereas those who go to T-14 can get such jobs even if they're not at the top of their class, those from lower ranked schools generally have to be at the top of their class to be considered (even locally) for Biglaw.
It matters what you want to do. If you know where you want to practice, local schools are worth considering. After talking to friends that went to regional t100 schools, I came away much more optimistic. The advice I've heard/seen quite a few places is if you want to go the big law route, hold out for the highest ranking you can get; if you want to go public service either pay for the top tier or go for free. I consider that to surely be oversimplified, and definitely want to see what other people have to say.
@aaronkeegan92975 I didn't know that about Kamala Harris! That's the most uplifting thing I'm probably going to read today haha
Hey,
I think going into a school that's not T-14 depends on what you want to do. As someone who worked at a really nice law probate/family firm in Downtown Dallas, sure you have your T-14 grads but we also had people who went to local well known law schools like Baylor and SMU. The only thing I would say about these lawyers is that they are really really good. The clients loved them and their work was extra-ordinary.
So I think it's fine to go outside T-14 but you may want to do research on how do these graduates from their law schools fare in getting jobs. Dallas has an excellent market and the local law schools there have a very strong alumni network. But I never met a lawyer there that neither went to T-14 nor to a law school that was well respected locally.
It's a nuanced answer. Both paths have their advantages and disadvantages.
I think a perfect example is the NFL. Fifty percent of the players in the NFL come from top D1 programs. These players have put in the work from junior high all the way through to the NFL. In high school and college their resumes and abilities were top of their class and they were noticed by scouts etc. These would be you T14 law grads. The other half had very different paths to the NFL but in the end they got there. Most of the time their stories are about overcoming hardship or out working their competition. They did, however, get to the NFL by doing something different than the thousands of other players that were not D1 talent. You can't go to Loyola New Orleans law school and graduate with a 2.5 and expect to run to the top of the ladder. You have to find a way to achieve at your highest level and get noticed.
Perfect example, I know a Chicago grad that makes 120k a year ten years out of school and I know a Cumberland law grad that is working in civil litigation 10 years out and making +1mm a year in an area where 100k is rich.
Your career is an accumulation of your work. Where you go to law school does not define you, it is where you end up and what you do over your entire career. I am older and I've seen this over and over again in life. If you work hard and continue to try to make improvements in your field, sport, hobby, or career you will rise to the top. It is the lazy and entitled that wallow in the misery of lost opportunities and resentment.
@harmmanb719 said:
@samanthaashley92715
@mosheikh126
I've heard about too with legal academia and I wonder why, like why is it so hard to get in with teaching?
Because it's an awesome job -- good pay, and not too much responsibility; prestige and work-life balance.
The question here is whether it is worth the money. If the cost is nearly $50,000 a year in tuition, then the sad truth of the matter is that these schools may not be a good financial investment.
The law school job market is very bimodal. You either get big law or something else. For biglaw your starting income is $160,000. For everything else the major concentration of income is in the $40,000 to 65,000 range. That's not really more than you could expect to make with a Bachelor's degree.
Therefore a pure cost benefit financial analysis tells us that depending on how risk adverse you are you need a fairly good chance of getting the better big law salary to justify the chance of being trapped with a debt of $150,000 in debt from tuition + cost of attendance and no increase in your expected earnings. So if you are paying sticker and making a decision primarily based on money you need an excellent shot at big law. This is what the schools in the Top 14 generally are able to provide, a decent shot at big law for the median student.
Of course the decision to pursue law is not always about maximizing money. I intend to pursue public interest law and avoid big law at all costs. This means I'm never going to get the high mode salary.
For public interest oriented people (without a stockpile of cash), there are three main options to avoid crippling debt. First, but underused is to save up at least $200,000 working a job with your Bachelor's degree (I think you can see why this isn't the most common approach). Second, get a scholarship (hopefully for near full tuition). Third, go to a school eith an excellent Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP) so that while you have the debt it isn't as crippling to repay. Better schools tend to have better financed LRAP's with the Top 14 and even more selective subsets if those schools having the best LRAP's.
If you go to a lower ranked school the LRAP approach likely isn't available. Assuming you don't have the money and don't intend to work as a non-lawyer until you can raise the money, that leaves the option of taking a big scholarship. This scholarship may leave you with some debt (cost of living), but the debt should be manageable on a non-big law salary.
This dynamic is true for people who just don't think big law or the top schools are a likely option for them as well as the public interest types.
So I would say that the calculus for me before knowing how I would score on the test was that I wouldn't pay full cost below the Top 14, and wanted full tuition to dip out of the top 20. Since my expectations have been raised, but I think that is a sensible criteria for most interested in big law or not.
@elliottscott8814
Here is the conclusion of my original comment:
"Generally, I do believe T14 would make a difference, but it certainly isn't the end of the world if it's not. I believe we should all just do our best studying for the test and get in the best schools within our ability. Whatever school that might be, work hard and try to stay on top of everything, that's really the necessary condition for success in my opinion. So work hard or bust."
OP's inquiry: T14 or bust?
My expressed opinion:
T14 would generally make a difference, but certainly isn't the necessary condition for success, rather, hard working is.
Then Mr. Datguy expressed his opinion, and I was in agreement with some of the points made therein that is in line with my proposition.
Now, if one quotes half of my comments in isolation from the original point, I can see how school being "secondary" comes off as advocating for the attendance of lower ranked institutions (which seems to be the way you took it) But that's not how I constructed my posts. "Secondary" in the said context emphasizes on the notion that any particular school (T14 in this case) isn't the necessary condition for success. If anything, I was advocating "for" T14 bc I do believe it would make a difference, just with the caveat that if not, don't stress, for it isn't the necessary condition for success (secondary)
If I may, I would say it again; what school one attends isn't the necessary condition (secondary) for success, rather, hard work is.
My further comments were in conformity with the centra idea -- success.
"Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success."
On the notion of "laziness", again if one reads my comment in context, it's easy to see my emphasis is on the beginning of the quotes, which is "if you work hard..." (the main point of my entire post) I quoted the whole thing anyways just bc it was Mr.Datguy's final sentences of the ending paragraph, but I have no interests to elaborate or engage in any stipulation for "whether or not" one would be lazy in law (again a brand-new idea here) if graduating from XYZ schools. Not a point in my argument. It's a cherry picking tactic so I'm just going to disengage myself from going down that rabbit hole.
@harmmanb719 said:
@elliottscott8814 well, I believe at this point this discussion has many layers and you and I seem to have a different focus, which is fine.
@elliottscott8814 said:
No one is arguing that the people at non Top 14 or top whatever schools shouldn't try their hardest.
The argument is more that people should do everything possible as far as LSAT and the rest of their application is concerned so that they can enjoy the smoother road to success available through the Top 14 while still struving to so their best rather than relying on working hard in the future and having sensationally good luck to get a positive return on their investment in a legal education at a lower ranked school.
This is actually not my argument if you see my original comment. I was not advocating for "ppl at non T14" should or shouldn't try their hardest. Rather, my point was more in line with part of your second paragraph that ppl (not in law shcool, T14 or nonT14) should do everything possible (work hard) as far as the LSAT, no matter what school they get in. And then work hard to stay on top of the class once get in. I did not imply we should just rely on working hard "in the future" or "good luck", those are brand new ideas. It's quite contrary actually. Your cost analysis is on point, and I very much agree from the financial standpoint. But I don't see our points are at odds here.
Your argument was...
"Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success. Or at least try."
In the context of our overall question of whether people should be top-14 or bust because lower ranked schools are not worth it, I think you should be able to see why it might appear that the statement that where you go to school is secondary to trying to excel is an endorsement of going to said lower ranked schools. And in a way its true. Some talented and hard working people will rise through the ranks from these schools based on ability. But, statistically that percentage (even as a fraction of the hard workers) will be negligible and chance will play at least as important of a role as ability.
You also were responding to a quote that claimed it is the lazy and entitled who wallow in the misery of lost opportunities and resentment rather than suceeding in law. But, if you graduate from many of these schools you don't need to be lazy or entitled not to make it, nor will trying to perform at your highest level likely be enough.
If we agree about these things then I don’t understand how you can say that the school people end up at is secondary. It seems rather crucial to me.
@jkatz1488955 said:
"You can't go to Loyola New Orleans law school and graduate with a 2.5 and expect to run to the top of the ladder. You have to find a way to achieve at your highest level and get noticed.
If you work hard and continue to try to make improvements in your field, sport, hobby, or career you will rise to the top. It is the lazy and entitled that wallow in the misery of lost opportunities and resentment."
Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success. Or at least try.
@elliottscott8814 Opinions vary :smile:
I know many people that have graduated from regional law schools; one works as a chief of staff for a congressman, another holds state office, and many others work for reputable firms. Most CA state senators and assembly members graduated from regional law schools, and some have went on to become US senators and congressmen. You obviously want to take rank into account, but do not do it at the expense of ignoring your own work ethic.
I would say 50 or bust... unless you plan on working for yourself. Personally, my rule is 30 or bust, but I'm a very black or white thinker.
Johnnie Cochran went to Loyola Marymount Law (ranked #65). :)
@aaronkeegan92975 said:
Kamala Harris (Senator of California) went to U.C. Hastings School of Law. Hastings is currently ranked 54 on USN. I think this might answer your question :)
And Mike Pence went to Indiana (Mckinney, not Maurer) School of Law. I believe that McKineey is far lower than U.C. Hastings.
@harmmanb719
The topic of my post was whether Top 14 or bust is a good idea. I with some reservations believe it is, but would narrow it to Top 14 or bust if at full tuition.
You posted about success saying mainly that the school you go to is secondary to how hard you try. If that were the case, one could expect to succeed in getting well paying (possibly big law) employment from bad schools if they just tried really hard. But, that is unfortunately not true.
This means its a really bad idea to go to poorly ranked schools at near full cost. If your assertion that hard work is the primary factor in determining success were true, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea because you could still pay off your debts. I hope you can see the link between the two now.
If you are still having difficulty acknowledging the link between analysis of the return on money spent on education and the determinants of financial success feel free to message me. I think the link is laid out clearly enough here for others.
I didn't misrepresent any of your arguments and cherry picking is just your go to phrase for dismissing errors in your reasoning. I would hope you wouldn't entitle a thread exposing seeking perfection and randomly challenge my lsat score when someone else has already done that and confirmed it(in a particularly crazy way).
Good luck with your journey too!
I hope neither you nor anyone else goes to a low ranked school at full freight with the mistaken belief that their effort will enable them to succeed in paying off their debt!
@harmmanb719 said:
@elliottscott8814
Here is the conclusion of my original comment:
"Generally, I do believe T14 would make a difference, but it certainly isn't the end of the world if it's not. I believe we should all just do our best studying for the test and get in the best schools within our ability. Whatever school that might be, work hard and try to stay on top of everything, that's really the necessary condition for success in my opinion. So work hard or bust."
OP's inquiry: T14 or bust?
My expressed opinion:
T14 would generally make a difference, but certainly isn't the necessary condition for success, rather, hard working is.
Then Mr. Datguy expressed his opinion, and I was in agreement with some of the points made therein that is in line with my proposition.
Now, if one quotes half of my comments in isolation from the original point, I can see how school being "secondary" comes off as advocating for the attendance of lower ranked institutions (which seems to be the way you took it) But that's not how I constructed my posts. "Secondary" in the said context emphasizes on the notion that any particular school (T14 in this case) isn't the necessary condition for success. If anything, I was advocating "for" T14 bc I do believe it would make a difference, just with the caveat that if not, don't stress, for it isn't the necessary condition for success (secondary)
If I may, I would say it again; what school one attends isn't the necessary condition (secondary) for success, rather, hard work is.
My further comments were in conformity with the centra idea -- success.
"Amen. It's really secondary what you do or where you go (national or regional school) You gotta excel at "your" highest level for any kind of success."
On the notion of "laziness", again if one reads my comment in context, it's easy to see my emphasis is on the beginning of the quotes, which is "if you work hard..." (the main point of my entire post) I quoted the whole thing anyways just bc it was Mr.Datguy's final sentences of the ending paragraph, but I have no interests to elaborate or engage in any stipulation for "whether or not" one would be lazy in law (again a brand-new idea here) if graduating from XYZ schools. Not a point in my argument. It's a cherry picking tactic so I'm just going to disengage myself from going down that rabbit hole.
I read your initial comment snd don't believe I am misrepresenting it.
-You say that Top 14 makes a difference.
I agree.
-You say we should all study our hardest on the lsat and go to the best school we can.
I agree(except for scholarships). Though the best school we can sounds a little bit like a cop out. The LSAT is a perfectible test. It just takes a very long time for some and only a mildly long time for others. If you are not going to get into a top 14, then unless you are not going into debt for law school, I don't see why you wouldn't just study longer (caveat for extreme splitters with lsats already above a 175).
-You say whatever school you go to, work hard.
This is the point I was addressing when I said no one was advocating being lazy in law school or not trying. It's fine, but it is also obvious and from what I know of competition in law school, close to everyone works hard. It's probably nearly necessary, but at non-top14 schools it's often nowhere near sufficient.
-Then you say working hard is really the necessary condition.
First, there could be more than one. Secondly, working hard is probably pretty close to a necessary condition. I doubt too many lawyers succeed without working hard. And being in the Top 14 isn't quite necessary since people do succeed from outside the Top 14.
-Then you say so work hard or bust as though it is a replacement for Top 14 or bust. I have no problem with the advice to work hard in law school. I have a problem with the idea that this will inherently make up for going to an inferior school. Everyone will be trying hard (or nearly everyone) and so you can't count on working your way to the top. I believe that there are certain schools people shouldn't go to expecting a positive return regardless of their work ethic. So I don't believe work hard or bust can replace top 14 or bust (or top 20 or 25 or bust).
Then you make this argument that because working hard is a necessary condition for success as a lawyer, it is primary and because Top 14 is not, it is secondary. First off, this is a strange use of secondary and primary I disagree with. Secondly, even if it were judged to be secondary in success in law that doesn't really alter any argument for going to the top 14 and not going to lower ranked schools without a big scholarship.
"Now, if one quotes half of my comments in isolation from the original point, I can see how school being "secondary" comes off as advocating for the attendance of lower ranked institutions (which seems to be the way you took it) But that's not how I constructed my posts. "Secondary" in the said context emphasizes on the notion that any particular school (T14 in this case) isn't the necessary condition for success."
It doesn't matter whether it's taken in isolation or not. Saying choice of school is secondary or that work hard or bust can replace top 14 or bust automatically is advocating for going to lesser schools(rather than studying for longerand going to better ones) on the theory that it will be okay because you are going to work hard and rise to the top (which isn't true since almost everyone will be working hard).
"If anything, I was advocating "for" T14 bc I do believe it would make a difference, just with the caveat that if not, don't stress, for it isn't the necessary condition for success (secondary)."
And here is the point where you get to our fundamental disagreement. I would say if not Top 14, do stress. Why stress? Because at certain schools no matter how hard you work success in efficiently paying off your debt isn't likely.
At the top 14 hardwork may be sufficient to get big law or the LRAP may make your debt manageable despite choosing to forego biglaw. It is not at lower ranked schools which should stress you out.
Therefore, barring a large scholarship leaving you with close to no additional debt don't go to low ranked law schools. If you still want law just study and retake the LSAT so you can get into the Top 14 or get a big scholarship.
I hope you can see where I agree with your argument and where I think it falls apart. Finally, I hope you can see that we have a major difference of opinion sustained throughout (not created by cherry picking your argument). You think that Top 14 schools confer some advantage, but that hard work is more crucial. I think the advantage is significant enough that they are pretty much the only law schools worth attending at sticker and therefore that people should be either Top 14 or bust or massive scholarship bringing them down to very little debt or bust. I think working hard is necessary too, but is the norm in law school and won't confer a competitive advantage which helps pay off debt from the mistake of paying full tuition at a non top-14.
@elliottscott8814 well, I believe at this point this discussion has many layers and you and I seem to have a different focus, which is fine.
@elliottscott8814 said:
No one is arguing that the people at non Top 14 or top whatever schools shouldn't try their hardest.
The argument is more that people should do everything possible as far as LSAT and the rest of their application is concerned so that they can enjoy the smoother road to success available through the Top 14 while still struving to so their best rather than relying on working hard in the future and having sensationally good luck to get a positive return on their investment in a legal education at a lower ranked school.
This is actually not my argument if you see my original comment. I was not advocating for "ppl at non T14" should or shouldn't try their hardest. Rather, my point was more in line with part of your second paragraph that ppl (not in law shcool, T14 or nonT14) should do everything possible (work hard) as far as the LSAT, no matter what school they get in. And then work hard to stay on top of the class once get in. I did not imply we should just rely on working hard "in the future" or "good luck", those are brand new ideas. It's quite contrary actually. Your cost analysis is on point, and I very much agree from the financial standpoint. But I don't see our points are at odds here.