A Law School Conundrum ?
Q: Do you think it's better be near the top of your class at a "2nd tier"
school or to be in the middle (lower portion even) of a top-10 school?
I.e. are job prospects equivalent? Do employers care more about a "big
name" or that a student excelled at a particular school (even though
it may not be perceived as top flight)?
A:I think it depends on just how good the top school is. From my
conversations with other students, for example, Stanford students seem to
have little trouble finding jobs, such is the strong reputation of that
school. I believe my Stanford friend stated "Every 2L who wanted a summer
job at a firm was able to find one." My friend who was at Boalt (a few
years back) said that students toward the bottom of the class indeed had
trouble finding 2L summer employment. Both schools are top-ten, and both
are great schools, but it would seem to me that at certain levels within
the class "ranking" (students aren't generally ranked, per se, but grades
allow a rough estimate) there is a difference between the two top-tens.
This is all anecdotal, of course, and I am sure that folks from the
aformentioned schools may have different experiences to report.
Again, I agree. If money is no option, then it is very dangerous
(and arrogant) to automatically base your plans on being at the
top of a school. But, if money is a factor, and your "second"
school is public and within your state, and the "top" school
is private, that could factor into your equation. (This factor
also explains why the competition is surprisingly tough at
many cheap law schools. There are people who either
could have, or did, get into "top" law schools, but
finances dictated otherwise.)
I rely on statistics. Top schools have many more interviewers
than schools ranked lower. In a survey I conducted this spring, Harvard
reported 569 on-campus interviewers; Boston U. reported 167. This shows
that