Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.1K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 26 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 285 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Importance of T14
The common understanding among law school applicants is that if you want a reasonable shot at practicing "big law" you HAVE to get T14. My questions is, why 14? I understand that you have to draw a line at some point, but I'm just wondering why its 14. Would the difference (chances getting into big law firms) between Cornell (#13) and Georgetown (#14), if there is any, be significantly different from the difference between Georgetown and UT (#15)?
I understand that it seems silly, but many people I've talked to really seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the idea of T14. So really, two questions, to whoever either has an answer or any opinion. I am currently in the running for most of T14. I am about 90% sure I would like to work in big law, and perhaps even internationally, so geography and regional strengths are really non-factors. Would it be unreasonable to choose UCLA #16 over say the #12, 13, or 14 schools if I just like UCLA better? Also, if 14 does happen to be the magic number, how do we account for the fact that these rankings DO change, and that what's 14 today may be 16 or 17 in 3 years?
I understand that it seems silly, but many people I've talked to really seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the idea of T14. So really, two questions, to whoever either has an answer or any opinion. I am currently in the running for most of T14. I am about 90% sure I would like to work in big law, and perhaps even internationally, so geography and regional strengths are really non-factors. Would it be unreasonable to choose UCLA #16 over say the #12, 13, or 14 schools if I just like UCLA better? Also, if 14 does happen to be the magic number, how do we account for the fact that these rankings DO change, and that what's 14 today may be 16 or 17 in 3 years?
Comments
A lot of that is just selection bias because in the case of GULC for example, people go there to be in DC and clerk and work in government so they don't have wicked high big law numbers not because the school sucks but because it's not what those kids want to do.
Now there are a handful of schools like Fordham that rank a bit lower but have better big law numbers in their respective markets. And then of course your ability to handle a debt load is also a major factor in where you should go.
The T14 is more an insurance policy for kids who would be top half of the class but not top 10% and still want big law or similar opportunities. The further away from the T14 you go, the higher in your class you need to rank to get big law, generally speaking.
That being said, the vast majority of people are in no position to just go and work at a big law firm before attending law school. While I definitely advise people to do their homework before choosing law school or any career path for that matter, the fact remains that gathering empirical evidence firsthand is not necessary or even the most practical way to do that for most people. And given the ridiculous cost of a legal education across the board, the only two decent and relatively common options to recover from that debt burden are big law or loan forgiveness. Until disruptive models of legal education come to the fore to provide a viable alternative to $100-$200k in debt then the status quo will likely be maintained for years and decades to come.
Best things: exposure to some of the biggest players in litigation/the prestige itself, the money, the intensity (as someone who thrives in that environment)
Worst things: the brutality of the hours is less about the number are more about the unpredictability (this goes all the way up the food chain), it can get VERY boring and repetitive and the hierarchy makes you feel like a cog in a machine
I'm one of those family-free people so it's exciting to think about something filling up my time like that. Something other than rewatching Downton Abbey.
Also probably considerably less threat of bodily harm in Biglaw. Probably.
I actually vehemently disagree with this, and it's this kind of thinking that makes so many associates miserable.
"and given the ridiculous cost of a legal education across the board, the only two decent and relatively common options to recover from that debt burden are big law or loan forgiveness."
But we can get into that in a more private conversation, if interested!
1) 160,000k - 190,000k a year as a starting salary is not necessary to "pay bills" or even pay back loans, even considering full tuition.
2) If the desire to go into big law stems from the desire to be able to pay off law school loans, that's some serious circular reasoning.
I'm mostly playing devils advocate here, but it comes from speaking with a lot of people who are the ones who took on hundreds of thousands in debt and are SO unhappy but can't leave because of the so-called "golden handcuffs."
Actually @Pacifico will really be in his LATE thirties at that point ...
Just kidding! Hello, would you like a torta? Get it? Tort-themed foods?
@alexandergreene93 I don't think Katherine's experience working in Wachtell will really give her a leg up in getting interviews for OCI. Those are pretty much all determined by grades. It could help her during the interviews because she could actually talk to associates about working at a firm and they might trust her ability to handle the hours moreso than someone who has never worked in a big law firm before.
Regional schools are risky unless you're dead set on staying in the area of your school and you're sure you can excel at the school. No matter where you go to school (YLS excluded), it seems your grades matter more and more thanks to the laws of supply and demand -- too many lawyers, not enough jobs. So if you're looking to go to UF or FSU, make sure you want to be in Florida and can excel at either one of those schools.
The logic behind T14 or bust, from my understanding, is that the lower in rankings you go, the more doors you close for yourself. Maybe down the line you realize you want to clerk or go public interest instead of working in big law. If you go to a T14 school, you have the flexibility to pursue multiple routes because of the name brand. Outside of the T14, T20, T25, T30, your chances to pursue something other than working at a law firm in your region becomes harder and harder.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=213
The order varies, but the only ranking of the entire bunch where the top 14 wasn't exactly the same as the modern top 14 was 1987, which is functionally useless.
Of course, I can't be arsed to double check his data, so if his data is wrong then I'm obviously wrong too.
What IS variable is 15-25, where there's been tons of movement over the years.
I had seen earlier rankings like these from 1975 and hadn't realized until you brought it up that it wasn't USNWR: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/10/the_first_law_s.html
Much like the old school LSAT it is interesting to see how things have changed.