Law School Discussion

Law Students => Transferring => Topic started by: marsius on August 03, 2009, 04:19:55 PM

Title: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: marsius on August 03, 2009, 04:19:55 PM
(I'm passing this question along for a friend)

A friend of mine is a 1L at Cooley and has okay, but not great, stats all around (Decent LSAT and UGPA, lured to Cooley by a scholarship, top 22%). With her numbers right now she's got a presumptive invite to Cooley's law review prereq (they make students take an additional writing class before they get on LR) and an invite to the moot court class. She was also admitted as a transfer to Michigan State University (T3).

MSU apparently isn't super nice to transfers. To do law review you need to participate in the write-on competition in the spring, and you can't even participate in that unless you have their two writing classes or get a waiver (which, if I understood her right, isn't available until after you're accepted). She's missed this year's competition, and apparently she can't do next year's because she'll only have a year left. She says that moot court is basically closed off as well.

She doesn't care where she gets a job, as long as she gets one. Cooley with law review would apparently do okay within Michigan, but, as I think we all are aware, the school isn't really respected outside of the Midwest.

What would you guys do if you were in her situation?

I tried breaking it down into a pro/con.

Staying at Cooley
Pros: Law review. Moot court. Decent placement in Michigan. So many people transfer out that her GPA (and rank) will probably shoot up next year.
Cons: It's probably the most derided T4 in the country. Little employment prospects outside of Michigan and almost zero outside of the midwest. Having to hide your diploma in shame.

Transferring to MSU
Pros: It's not Cooley. Has been on the rise since merging with MSU (I think it'll probably settle as a low T2, somewhere near DePaul). National name recognition.

Do you guys have any other thoughts? What would you do if you were in her situation? ???
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: big - fat - box on August 03, 2009, 04:44:51 PM
Your friend should have applied to more schools. Class rank and 1L gpa are everything in the transfer process, it has nothing to do pre-law stats.

How much is the scholarship at Cooley for ?

As far as the law review/moot court thing at Cooley, do these classes mean your are automatically on LR or moot court afterwards? Or do they mean that you have to THEN write on/compete after you take the classes?

MSU is known for it's sports teams but that's not the same as being known for it's law school. MSU doesn't have good job prospects outside of MI and the midwest either.

Cooley isn't that respected in MI. Law review at Cooley might push her ahead of some other candidates for jobs in the midwest but I wouldn't think it would be a lock for anything b/c the economy is so bad in MI and the midwest right now. To top it off, top 22% is good, but really not that impressive to a lot of employers who are inundated with a ton of apps for what little positions are available. Don't forget we're talking Cooley here.

Your "friend" is in a really tough spot here. I don't think transferring to MSU would be a good idea unless the scholarship she has at Cooley is very small.

Here's what I would do:

1) See if there is a way to take a 1 year leave of absence from Cooley, then apply for transfer status at several other schools well in advance of the deadline. She'll have to call several schools and ask if they would go for this. Where does your friend have residency? If she has residency in a state that has a decent in-state law school(s), she needs to find out if she would be competitive for admission there. During her time off from school she should get a legal job of some sort, even if that means working as a paralegal or working in retail and doing an unpaid internship on the side.

2) Visit at another school during her final year of law school. This might be difficult. I do not know what Cooley's policy on visiting students is and she'd have to apply to visit. It isn't that hard to get accepted as a visiting student SOMEWHERE, the problem is always trying to coordinate it with your "home" law school. The goal should be to visit her third year at a reputable law school in an area of the country where the economy isn't as bad as in the midwest, where she could try to network for a post-grad job. A downside is that she would have to pay full sticker price for her third year. If Cooley does agree to it, she'd have to find some way to do her law review duties off site (assuming she gets on and Cooley allows that). Moot court would be out.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 03, 2009, 04:47:53 PM
I would transfer to MSU.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: marsius on August 03, 2009, 06:12:46 PM
I would transfer to MSU.

I think I'd do MSU too (meant to put that in the original post).

Your friend should have applied to more schools. Class rank and 1L gpa are everything in the transfer process, it has nothing to do pre-law stats.

How much is the scholarship at Cooley for ?

As far as the law review/moot court thing at Cooley, do these classes mean your are automatically on LR or moot court afterwards? Or do they mean that you have to THEN write on/compete after you take the classes?

MSU is known for it's sports teams but that's not the same as being known for it's law school. MSU doesn't have good job prospects outside of MI and the midwest either.

Cooley isn't that respected in MI. Law review at Cooley might push her ahead of some other candidates for jobs in the midwest but I wouldn't think it would be a lock for anything b/c the economy is so bad in MI and the midwest right now. To top it off, top 22% is good, but really not that impressive to a lot of employers who are inundated with a ton of apps for what little positions are available. Don't forget we're talking Cooley here.

Your "friend" is in a really tough spot here. I don't think transferring to MSU would be a good idea unless the scholarship she has at Cooley is very small.

Here's what I would do:

1) See if there is a way to take a 1 year leave of absence from Cooley, then apply for transfer status at several other schools well in advance of the deadline. She'll have to call several schools and ask if they would go for this. Where does your friend have residency? If she has residency in a state that has a decent in-state law school(s), she needs to find out if she would be competitive for admission there. During her time off from school she should get a legal job of some sort, even if that means working as a paralegal or working in retail and doing an unpaid internship on the side.

2) Visit at another school during her final year of law school. This might be difficult. I do not know what Cooley's policy on visiting students is and she'd have to apply to visit. It isn't that hard to get accepted as a visiting student SOMEWHERE, the problem is always trying to coordinate it with your "home" law school. The goal should be to visit her third year at a reputable law school in an area of the country where the economy isn't as bad as in the midwest, where she could try to network for a post-grad job. A downside is that she would have to pay full sticker price for her third year. If Cooley does agree to it, she'd have to find some way to do her law review duties off site (assuming she gets on and Cooley allows that). Moot court would be out.

I included her prelaw stats because it's consistent with her 1L stats—good, not great. If I understand it correctly, being in the class is usually a guaranteed spot on LR. There's supposedly a grade requirement in that class but it sounds like just about everyone gets it.

I already suggested taking a leave of absence and visiting another school. She shot the first one down and apparently Cooley bans visiting, so the second is out too. Also, as for the residency issue—good question. She's Canadian but has dual citizenship, but I'm not sure what state she has residency in. I know that her parents are in Washington right now, but they're apparently planning to move back to the Great White North. She has made it clear, though, that she wants to work in the States.

You did, however, hit on two of my issues in trying to give her advice: 1) All things being the same, MSU likely has better job prospects, especially in a bad economy, but, in the grand scheme of things, MSU isn't really that much of a step up; and 2) though she'd be giving up a scholarship, I think it's only 25%, so MSU would only end up being about ~$10,000 more a year (she countered that her scholarship could jump to 50% depending on her grades in the next couple terms).

All the background info is just that—background. I agree that she should have applied to more schools (based on the transferapps yahoo group she could have had a decent shot at much of the lower T2), but it doesn't matter, because she is where she is.

She's made it sound like moot court and LR are a lock at Cooley and nonexistent for her at MSU. So the question is, would you stay at Cooley with LR, Moot Court, and a 25% scholarship, or would you jump ship to MSU and have none of that?

I personally lean towards transferring. MSU, no matter the quality of the school itself, doesn't have the stigma attached to its name that Cooley does. As a result, even if the early prospects suck, if she builds up a decent amount of experience, then her job prospects should pick up three years out or so. If she stays at Cooley, LR or not, she'll still always have that name on her resume, and I think that a lot of potential employers would refuse to give her a chance based solely on that. It seems like somewhat of a tossup to me, though, hence why I've brought the question to you guys.

Also, as an aside, as much as everyone loves the tongue-in-cheek "friend" routine, it's not a joke. I'm not trying to hide or pretend. I'm male, a US citizen, and am headed to a T1 in DC. She's female, has Canadian and US citizenship, and is trying to choose between East Lansing and Lansing. Sticking to that question would be nice.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: big - fat - box on August 03, 2009, 07:43:36 PM
It really is a tossup. Why is she unwilling to take a 1 year leave of absence? That would seem to be the best idea. It would give her an extra year to wait out the crap economy and also get a year of legal work experience. If she has dual citizenship, there is no work visa issue.

In a perfect world your friend would have gone to a Canadian law school, saved a load of dough, then gone to an American law school for a foreign lawyers' LLM if she wanted to work in the states.

Getting a continuing student scholarship at MSU isn't something to bank on. Especially with looming big $$$ debt and a crappy job outlook in the Midwest, MSU students are going to be really gunning for those.

No matter what your friend does, she would be wise to get out of the midwest for her 2L summer internship and make connections somewhere that will hire a fresh Cooley or MSU grad.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Ninja1 on August 03, 2009, 09:39:38 PM
MSU easily.

http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/composite.pdf
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vap on August 04, 2009, 12:31:42 AM
MSU easily.

http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/composite.pdf

I don't see how the NLJ placement stats (or the employment stats in general, excluding academic attrition and transfers) support choosing MSU.  MSU's 3% NLJ placement, compared to Cooley's 0%, doesn't justify the transfer, IMO. 

So the question is, would you stay at Cooley with LR, Moot Court, and a 25% scholarship, or would you jump ship to MSU and have none of that?

Cooley.  I think the $20K less debt, law review, and moot court turn the table on the lower reputation.  And this isn't even considering the unknown possibilities, all of which are unlikely at MSU: higher class rank due to transfers, law review editorial board, publishing note/comment, moot court board, high placement at moot court tournament, good references/letters from 1L professors, social networks gained through moot court / law review / 1L year.  Job prospects from both schools will not be great. 

MSU's marginally better employment prospects don't justify the jump, in my opinion.  At least with law review and moot court at Cooley, your friend has some credibility.  She'll be a nobody at MSU.  Better to be a big fish in a small pond rather than just another fish in a slightly larger pond.  If your friend was transferring to some random tier 2 or tier 1 school, the move would probably be worth it.  But I don't see the move being worth $20K, law review, and moot court.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: marsius on August 04, 2009, 12:44:48 AM
MSU easily.

http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/composite.pdf

I don't see how the NLJ placement stats (or the employment stats in general, excluding academic attrition and transfers) support choosing MSU.  MSU's 3% NLJ placement, compared to Cooley's 0%, doesn't justify the transfer, IMO. 

So the question is, would you stay at Cooley with LR, Moot Court, and a 25% scholarship, or would you jump ship to MSU and have none of that?

Cooley.  I think the $20K less debt, law review, and moot court turn the table on the lower reputation.  And this isn't even considering the unknown possibilities, all of which are unlikely at MSU: higher class rank due to transfers, law review editorial board, publishing note/comment, moot court board, high placement at moot court tournament, good references/letters from 1L professors, social networks gained through moot court / law review / 1L year.  Job prospects from both schools will not be great. 

MSU's marginally better employment prospects don't justify the jump, in my opinion.  At least with law review and moot court at Cooley, your friend has some credibility.  She'll be a nobody at MSU.  Better to be a big fish in a small pond rather than just another fish in a slightly larger pond.  If your friend was transferring to some random tier 2 or tier 1 school, the move would probably be worth it.  But I don't see the move being worth $20K, law review, and moot court.

After learning more from her about MSU and transfer students, I'm beginning to swing this way too. I'm not sure that I'm convinced—I still have this worry that, in five years, when experience begins to eclipse education, having Cooley on her resume could be a game breaker—but I'm definitely torn on what to recommend.

The latest things I've learned: MSU doesn't allow transfer students to earn latin honors at graduation and, if her interpretation of the student handbook is correct, they don't allow transfer students to graduate with regular honors either (I'm iffier on whether this interpretation is correct). They also don't give transfer students an official rank (something about only allowing them to have an unofficial "comparison" ranking. Not sure if it would go on a transcript or not).

She met with MSU's Dean of Academics today and didn't come away feeling good about transferring but also didn't feel like he really had much information. I've encouraged her to set up a meeting with the woman in the admissions office who oversees transfers, as I figure that she may have better info and, perhaps, might be more willing to pull strings for things like moot court (if there are any strings to pull).

I've also encouraged her to set up meetings with a couple professors at Cooley. All of the advice that she's received from people with JDs so far has come from people who graduated from Cooley. I'm not sure that they provide the most unbiased advice. She's had a few professors that she really respected there, though, who come from more reputable schools (Illinois, Michigan, etc) and who, according to her, have a reputation of being very honest and upfront with potential transfer students (two of the four she's going to try to talk to have encouraged friends of hers to leave while encouraging others to stay, and the other two have a good reputation for this kind of stuff). Here's hoping she gets some good advice . . .
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: big - fat - box on August 04, 2009, 04:49:37 AM
The no latin honors thing shouldn't be an issue. I've heard of other schools doing that. Although it kind of sucks, employers, especially ones outside the midwest will do fine with a gpa.

As far as "not ranking transfers" you need to get some clarification on that. When someone transfers to a new school to start 2L in the fall, they are not usually ranked by the new school. They must use their transcript from their old school along with a statement on their resume that says they've transferred when they look for 2L summer employment. If they have a class ranking from the old school, they can use that also for employment purposes. Then you get a transcript from the new school that says what classes you've enrolled in for the fall and spring and how many transfer credits credits were accepted. This lets employers know you aren't lying about the transfer to a new school.

Ranking at the new school (if the new school ranks at all - some schools do not rank students) doesn't happen until you've completed a full year at the new school. At that point, your gpa starts from scratch and the old grades from the old school are not factored in. You are still free to use (and should use) the 1L grades from the old school as a part of your transcript. Both the old school and the new school stay on your resume (new school on top) until graduation. At that point you decide whether or not you want to list the old school.





The latest things I've learned: MSU doesn't allow transfer students to earn latin honors at graduation and, if her interpretation of the student handbook is correct, they don't allow transfer students to graduate with regular honors either (I'm iffier on whether this interpretation is correct). They also don't give transfer students an official rank (something about only allowing them to have an unofficial "comparison" ranking. Not sure if it would go on a transcript or not).

Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: oscar1 on August 04, 2009, 03:36:34 PM
there is no reason a person should stay at Cooley if given the chance.

People in the top 5% of Cooley transferred to U of Illinois last year and were slammed at OCI because the had that on their resumes.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 04, 2009, 04:57:58 PM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.  ::)
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: lawrookie on August 04, 2009, 10:56:11 PM
How were they "slammed"?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Ninja1 on August 05, 2009, 12:46:00 AM
MSU easily.

http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/composite.pdf

I don't see how the NLJ placement stats (or the employment stats in general, excluding academic attrition and transfers) support choosing MSU.  MSU's 3% NLJ placement, compared to Cooley's 0%, doesn't justify the transfer, IMO. 


It's not about the left side of the graph, it's about the right and the middle. MSU doesn't get people into prestigious firms at any great rate, but they do get them through school and into jobs at a much greater rate than Cooley.

I believe if OP can hold it down at Cooley, they can probably hold it down at MSU.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: xxspykex on August 05, 2009, 03:41:07 AM
Deleted.

--post edited by EC
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: jbakguy on August 05, 2009, 08:05:17 AM
Has your friend though about staying at Cooley, doing LR and Moot Court and then pursuing an LLM at a different school to wait out the economy for awhile longer, get time in a different market to network and give future employers a different school to look at on the resume and hopefully combat the Cooley stigma? (not saying that this is the right way to go, but it is a possibility that has not been discussed ITT)
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 08:12:01 AM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: xxspykex on August 05, 2009, 03:25:57 PM
Deleted.

--post edited by EC
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 05, 2009, 05:05:02 PM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.

LOL. And the world would be a better place if lampposts were made of gumdrops and gravy tasted good on ice cream. But the reality is that, on the whole, better schools attract better students, and better students prior to legal education are more likely to be better lawyers. Yes, there are exceptions.

Is that elitist? Of course it is- employers want elite recruits. It's elitist that I never got my chance to play in the NFL. In fact, most NFL players come out of a handful of top schools, despite the fact that football players in lower divisions get the same football education. NFL franchises don't recruit players out of Valdosta State or Brown, and no one decries it as shameful and elitist.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 05:34:08 PM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.

LOL. And the world would be a better place if lampposts were made of gumdrops and gravy tasted good on ice cream. But the reality is that, on the whole, better schools attract better students, and better students prior to legal education are more likely to be better lawyers. Yes, there are exceptions.

Is that elitist? Of course it is- employers want elite recruits. It's elitist that I never got my chance to play in the NFL. In fact, most NFL players come out of a handful of top schools, despite the fact that football players in lower divisions get the same football education. NFL franchises don't recruit players out of Valdosta State or Brown, and no one decries it as shameful and elitist.

Of course, lampposts, gumdrops, gravy, and football have nothing to do with law review, moot court, transferring, or anything else discussed in this topic.  Are you just trying to be a smart ass or do you actually have a point to make, here? Aside from your off-topic sarcasm, I don't really see much difference between my comment and the logic that I think lies beneath yours. 

What's your point?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 05, 2009, 05:51:17 PM
The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: xxspykex on August 05, 2009, 06:03:43 PM
The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

Uhh... What about the fact that law firms routinely hire at historically black schools like Howard, and that URMs commonly do poorer on the LSAT? Are white kids that grow up in rich white families (i.e. the majority of top law school students) really better lawyers than blacks? I doubt that, and I think firm's seem to agree based on their hiring trends.

BTW- UIUC blows. They sent me information about there school and it made me laugh. They twist their numbers just about as badly as Cooley -- WTF is "top 10 public law school" (and the ridiculous statistics just go on). And the laughable median salary of $80K a year! People seriously pay $54K a year to attend UIUC to make $80K a year at graduation? f()ck that. Enjoy living in a cardboard box and partaking in bum fights over a 40 of Colt 45 after graduation!!
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 05, 2009, 06:09:06 PM
The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

Uhh... What about the fact that law firms routinely hire at historically black schools like Howard, and that URMs commonly do poorer on the LSAT? Are white kids that grow up in rich white families (i.e. the majority of top law school students) really better lawyers than blacks? I doubt that, and I think firm's seem to agree based on their hiring trends.

BTW- UIUC blows. They sent me information about there school and it made me laugh. They twist their numbers just about as badly as Cooley -- WTF is "top 10 public law school" (and the ridiculous statistics just go on). And the laughable median salary of $80K a year! People seriously pay $54K a year to attend UIUC to make $80K a year at graduation? f()ck that.

I didn't go to UIUC for law school. But thanks for playing. Your research and grammar skills will take you far in the legal world.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: xxspykex on August 05, 2009, 06:20:42 PM
I didn't go to UIUC for law school.

Probably the smartest thing you've said on this thread.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 07:12:14 PM
The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

I think it's unfortunate that you think anti-discrimination laws are asinine.

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It's just plain willful ignorance to posit such non-sense. Not all lawyers coming out of Yale are good, and not all lawyers coming out of Cooley are incompetent.  The moxie and overall competence of the lawyer varies from individual to individual, it is not institutionally uniformed.  You can study at the law schools of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Duke and still manage to fail the bar, just like you can graduate from Cooley and MSU and pass the bar with flying colors. 

You've yet to even define "better" in this elitist thesis of yours.  Have you even an original definition to bear?  And even if you do, are you reasonable enough to recognize its inherent relativism?  No one here is denying the reality of the elitist and discriminatory perceptions governing the legal employment market, but the debate here is about whether those perceptions are valid, right, and fair.  And the answer is clear, no! Those perceptions are neither valid, right, or fair!

I reject your non-sense, and your foolish attempts to defend it.  Of course, you're still entitled to your opinion, no matter how f ucked up it is.

If lawyers coming out of less prestigious school are so bad (as you've clearly implied), to what do you owe their competence and success in the law?

Lets turn to a more neutral source; Forbes.  After all, in this superficial elitist environment you champion, money and success go hand and hand, yes?

Point to your top ivy lawyers in this list: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/132.html

And how many of these lawyers come out of your imagined argument in this list? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/134.html

Any tip top ivy-league lawyers, here? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/144.html

The former President of the ABA and current Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC is a graduate of MSU's part-time evening program for crying out loud! Plus, he's a man of color! http://www.dickinson-wright.com/atty2.aspx?user_id=ArcherDW

Sure, there are plenty of lawyers who graduated from "top" schools who are successful, no one is denying that, and if we go to Forbes, here is a small non-exhaustive list of them: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/140.html.  But there are just as many (if not more) successful lawyers coming from other schools who are just as successful, if not more.  You need to admit it.

There was a time where similar elitist perceptions like the ones you posit were used to stamp out law schools with part time programs (especially evening programs).  I wonder where Georgetown would be if those perceptions had succeeded?  There was also a time when these arguments tried to keep women and persons of color from having access to the legal education apparatus.  Had there not been "asinine anti-discrimination laws" as you call it, would a successful and competent lawyer like Mr. Dennis Archer be the Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC, or the former president of the ABA?  No.

Again, I reject your argument and your feeble attempt to defend it.  >:(

But I think it is fair to say, that given the selectivity of the "top" schools, and their small exclusive number in all of the law schools in the ABA arena, most lawyers who are successful, never attended these "top" schools.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 05, 2009, 07:20:44 PM
What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa. 

actually, the premise is merely that people coming out of top law schools are more likely to be good lawyers, and vice versa.  true or not, this is a significantly less bold assertion than anything about "everyone graduating from..."
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 07:26:47 PM
What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa. 

actually, the premise is merely that people coming out of top law schools are more likely to be good lawyers, and vice versa.  true or not, this is a significantly less bold assertion than anything about "everyone graduating from..."

Well that's just as problematic.  How is that measured? How is that determined? We can disagree about degrees of boldness. The premise is the premise.  The assertion is the assertion.  And, it's all problematic. 
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 05, 2009, 07:31:39 PM
Well that's just as problematic.  How is that measured? How is that determined? We can disagree about degrees of boldness. The premise is the premise.  The assertion is the assertion.  And, it's all problematic. 

so you agree with what i just said about boldness, which is all i'm looking for here.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 07:38:09 PM
Well that's just as problematic.  How is that measured? How is that determined? We can disagree about degrees of boldness. The premise is the premise.  The assertion is the assertion.  And, it's all problematic. 

so you agree with what i just said about boldness, which is all i'm looking for here.

No, I don't agree with what you said.  But I respect your perception of the premise of the argument inasmuch as it differs from mine.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 05, 2009, 07:52:09 PM
The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

I think it's unfortunate that you think anti-discrimination laws are asinine.

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It's just plain willful ignorance to posit such non-sense. Not all lawyers coming out of Yale are good, and not all lawyers coming out of Cooley are incompetent.  The moxie and overall competence of the lawyer varies from individual to individual, it is not institutionally uniformed.  You can study at the law schools of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Duke and still manage to fail the bar, just like you can graduate from Cooley and MSU and pass the bar with flying colors. 

You've yet to even define "better" in this elitist thesis of yours.  Have you even an original definition to bear?  And even if you do, are you reasonable enough to recognize its inherent relativism?  No one here is denying the reality of the elitist and discriminatory perceptions governing the legal employment market, but the debate here is about whether those perceptions are valid, right, and fair.  And the answer is clear, no! Those perceptions are neither valid, right, or fair!

I reject your non-sense, and your foolish attempts to defend it.  Of course, you're still entitled to your opinion, no matter how f ucked up it is.

If lawyers coming out of less prestigious school are so bad (as you've clearly implied), to what do you owe their competence and success in the law?

Lets turn to a more neutral source; Forbes.  After all, in this superficial elitist environment you champion, money and success go hand and hand, yes?

Point to your top ivy lawyers in this list: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/132.html

And how many of these lawyers come out of your imagined argument in this list? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/134.html

Any tip top ivy-league lawyers, here? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/144.html

The former President of the ABA and current Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC is a graduate of MSU's part-time evening program for crying out loud! Plus, he's a man of color! http://www.dickinson-wright.com/atty2.aspx?user_id=ArcherDW

Sure, there are plenty of lawyers who graduated from "top" schools who are successful, no one is denying that, and if we go to Forbes, here is a small non-exhaustive list of them: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/140.html.  But there are just as many (if not more) successful lawyers coming from other schools who are just as successful, if not more.  You need to admit it.

There was a time where similar elitist perceptions like the ones you posit were used to stamp out law schools with part time programs (especially evening programs).  I wonder where Georgetown would be if those perceptions had succeeded?  There was also a time when these arguments tried to keep women and persons of color from having access to the legal education apparatus.  Had there not been "asinine anti-discrimination laws" as you call it, would a successful and competent lawyer like Mr. Dennis Archer be the Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC, or the former president of the ABA?  No.

Again, I reject your argument and your feeble attempt to defend it.  >:(

But I think it is fair to say, that given the selectivity of the "top" schools, and their small exclusive number in all of the law schools in the ABA arena, most lawyers who are successful, never attended these "top" schools.


I think the thesaurus function on your computer has gone haywire.

Anyway, you're either being purposefully dense, or you're deluding yourself. But if you want something to measure, how about we look at bar passage rates at various schools. Or median salaries. Or something a touch more statistically significant than "look at this guy who went to TTT Tech".

But here's a thought experiment: you can hire only one employee. You have two prospective candidates. You know absolutely nothing about them, except that one went to Yale, and one went to Michigan State (a school I bring up because you brought it up). Who do you hire? If you answer Michigan State, you're a damned fool. And if you say something like "well you have to look at the whole package, an individual from any school can be as good as an individual from any other school", then you are deliberately missing the point. Of course they can be. But mostly they aren't.

Actually, I know exactly what your next responses are going to be:

-There's no way to measure "success", because everything is so damned elitist. Major firms mostly hire from the best schools because they're elitist. Judges get clerks from the best schools because they're elitist. Academics come from top schools because the academy is elitist. Etc.

(quick retort: remember how I said reality is elitist...)

- I'm ignoring the fact that [some dude] went to [X school] and he's doing all right for himself

(quick retort: how's the average person from the law school doing? What percentage even passes the bar?)

-I think everyone from all top schools become super fantastic lawyers, while everyone else is a failure and a mediocrity

(quick retort: strawman. I never once said that. But there are trends. Not everyone from USC goes on to the NFL. Someone from Mount Union just got drafted last year. That's not a proof that Mount Union is just as good as USC, if only the NFL wasn't so damned elitist about it.)
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 05, 2009, 07:58:10 PM
Wait a second: you're not even in law school. All right, I'm done wasting time with some 0L that wants to teach me all about how the legal world works.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 08:21:32 PM
Wait a second: you're not even in law school. All right, I'm done wasting time with some 0L that wants to teach me all about how the legal world works.

The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

I think it's unfortunate that you think anti-discrimination laws are asinine.

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It's just plain willful ignorance to posit such non-sense. Not all lawyers coming out of Yale are good, and not all lawyers coming out of Cooley are incompetent.  The moxie and overall competence of the lawyer varies from individual to individual, it is not institutionally uniformed.  You can study at the law schools of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Duke and still manage to fail the bar, just like you can graduate from Cooley and MSU and pass the bar with flying colors. 

You've yet to even define "better" in this elitist thesis of yours.  Have you even an original definition to bear?  And even if you do, are you reasonable enough to recognize its inherent relativism?  No one here is denying the reality of the elitist and discriminatory perceptions governing the legal employment market, but the debate here is about whether those perceptions are valid, right, and fair.  And the answer is clear, no! Those perceptions are neither valid, right, or fair!

I reject your non-sense, and your foolish attempts to defend it.  Of course, you're still entitled to your opinion, no matter how f ucked up it is.

If lawyers coming out of less prestigious school are so bad (as you've clearly implied), to what do you owe their competence and success in the law?

Lets turn to a more neutral source; Forbes.  After all, in this superficial elitist environment you champion, money and success go hand and hand, yes?

Point to your top ivy lawyers in this list: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/132.html

And how many of these lawyers come out of your imagined argument in this list? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/134.html

Any tip top ivy-league lawyers, here? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/144.html

The former President of the ABA and current Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC is a graduate of MSU's part-time evening program for crying out loud! Plus, he's a man of color! http://www.dickinson-wright.com/atty2.aspx?user_id=ArcherDW

Sure, there are plenty of lawyers who graduated from "top" schools who are successful, no one is denying that, and if we go to Forbes, here is a small non-exhaustive list of them: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/140.html.  But there are just as many (if not more) successful lawyers coming from other schools who are just as successful, if not more.  You need to admit it.

There was a time where similar elitist perceptions like the ones you posit were used to stamp out law schools with part time programs (especially evening programs).  I wonder where Georgetown would be if those perceptions had succeeded?  There was also a time when these arguments tried to keep women and persons of color from having access to the legal education apparatus.  Had there not been "asinine anti-discrimination laws" as you call it, would a successful and competent lawyer like Mr. Dennis Archer be the Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC, or the former president of the ABA?  No.

Again, I reject your argument and your feeble attempt to defend it.  >:(

But I think it is fair to say, that given the selectivity of the "top" schools, and their small exclusive number in all of the law schools in the ABA arena, most lawyers who are successful, never attended these "top" schools.


I think the thesaurus function on your computer has gone haywire.

Anyway, you're either being purposefully dense, or you're deluding yourself. But if you want something to measure, how about we look at bar passage rates at various schools. Or median salaries. Or something a touch more statistically significant than "look at this guy who went to TTT Tech".

But here's a thought experiment: you can hire only one employee. You have two prospective candidates. You know absolutely nothing about them, except that one went to Yale, and one went to Michigan State (a school I bring up because you brought it up). Who do you hire? If you answer Michigan State, you're a damned fool. And if you say something like "well you have to look at the whole package, an individual from any school can be as good as an individual from any other school", then you are deliberately missing the point. Of course they can be. But mostly they aren't.

Actually, I know exactly what your next responses are going to be:

-There's no way to measure "success", because everything is so damned elitist. Major firms mostly hire from the best schools because they're elitist. Judges get clerks from the best schools because they're elitist. Academics come from top schools because the academy is elitist. Etc.

(quick retort: remember how I said reality is elitist...)

- I'm ignoring the fact that [some dude] went to [X school] and he's doing all right for himself

(quick retort: how's the average person from the law school doing? What percentage even passes the bar?)

-I think everyone from all top schools become super fantastic lawyers, while everyone else is a failure and a mediocrity

(quick retort: strawman. I never once said that. But there are trends. Not everyone from USC goes on to the NFL. Someone from Mount Union just got drafted last year. That's not a proof that Mount Union is just as good as USC, if only the NFL wasn't so damned elitist about it.)

First of all, I am in law school, you stupid f uck!  Get it correct.  Second of all, even when I wasn't in law school, I still knew more than you ever will.  Third of all, grow the f uck up and stop acting like a weak ass whiny b itch just because someone disagrees with you.

As far as your "thesaurus" comment goes, if the words I've used are too difficult for you to understand, then you're either not in law school yourself, or you're clearly in the bottom 1% of your class, if you haven't already flunked out.  Given that I've taken the vocab down a notch, you should be able to understand now.

Your little hypothetical scenario is foolish at best.  It has little (if any) basis in reality.  The fact is, final hiring decisions don't come down to that (at least for employers in their right mind worth their salt).   And if they do, it's because both applicants match each other equally, strength for strength, and at that point, it has nothing to do with who is the better lawyer. Employers do use a comprehensive hiring process which takes more in to account than the name of the school.  Even bottom 1% idiots in law school know this.  Why don't you know this you stupid b itch?  There are also interviews, face-to-face encounters, reference and background checks, legal experience, grades, undergraduate major (for Intellectual Property), networking pull, and sometimes trial experiences (prior internship experiences, etc) that go into consideration.  You don't know what you're talking about!  I'm convinced that you don't much of anything. What are you even doing here injecting yourself in a discourse that is clearly above your head. And for someone who was so quick to whip out his "I'm in law school" male private part, you're a f ucking disgrace to every law student, and you're a f ucking fraud. 

Your little hyphenated points and retorts are all water under the crumbling bridge.  The sooner you recognize that your argument is stupid and that I'm right and you're wrong, the smarter you'll be.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 08:24:00 PM
Wait a second: you're not even in law school. All right, I'm done wasting time with some 0L that wants to teach me all about how the legal world works.

God you're so f ucking pathetic, it's starting to get on my damn nerves...
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Miss P on August 05, 2009, 09:15:28 PM
Wait a second: you're not even in law school. All right, I'm done wasting time with some 0L that wants to teach me all about how the legal world works.

While I generally agree with you (and think vansondon's tantrum above is ridiculous), I don't see any reason why a 0L would necessarily know less about the hiring prospects of students at Cooley and MSU than a 1L at Chicago does. (And yes, vansondon, I understand that you are in law school; I am making a more general point.)  Neither of you is likely to have a lot of understanding of how the markets MSU and Cooley students enter work.  And neither do I, so I'll just go on instinct (and my experience looking for public sector jobs from a T2): I think vap has the best of this argument.


Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 05, 2009, 09:19:01 PM
 :D :D :D OK, internet tough guy.  :D :D :D

As for knowledge of hiring prospects, I know that Yale > Cooley. This isn't a controversial proposition. I've claimed little more than that.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 09:27:18 PM
:D :D :D OK, internet tough guy.  :D :D :D

As for knowledge of hiring prospects, I know that Yale > Cooley. This isn't a controversial proposition. I've claimed little more than that.

ooooh... fake ass laughter displayed in 6 smileys, whatever will I do?!  ::)  At this point, it doesn't really matter what you think.  Your argument was defeated a while ago.  As for Yale being ">" than Cooley, I don't dispute that that is a widely held point of view.  But if you had paid attention to the topic, you would know that the discussion is a dilemma between Cooley and MSU, not Cooley and Yale.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 05, 2009, 09:31:38 PM
Well that's just as problematic.  How is that measured? How is that determined? We can disagree about degrees of boldness. The premise is the premise.  The assertion is the assertion.  And, it's all problematic. 

so you agree with what i just said about boldness, which is all i'm looking for here.

No, I don't agree with what you said.  But I respect your perception of the premise of the argument inasmuch as it differs from mine.

so you're saying that "everyone out of X school will be a good lawyer" is not significantly bolder than "most people out of X school will be good lawyers"? 

okay then.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 09:35:56 PM
Well that's just as problematic.  How is that measured? How is that determined? We can disagree about degrees of boldness. The premise is the premise.  The assertion is the assertion.  And, it's all problematic. 

so you agree with what i just said about boldness, which is all i'm looking for here.

No, I don't agree with what you said.  But I respect your perception of the premise of the argument inasmuch as it differs from mine.

so you're saying that "everyone out of X school will be a good lawyer" is not significantly bolder than "most people out of X school will be good lawyers"? 

okay then.

I think they're both problematic.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 05, 2009, 09:40:44 PM
I think they're both problematic.

we've established that.  the question is, do you think that "everyone out of X school will be a good lawyer" is not a significantly bolder statement than "most people out of X school will be good lawyers"?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 09:43:43 PM
I think they're both problematic.

we've established that.  the question is, do you think that "everyone out of X school will be a good lawyer" is not a significantly bolder statement than "most people out of X school will be good lawyers"?


I don't think that's the question at all, as I think I've made my position clear.  Clearly, if I think that both phrases are equally problematic, then I don't think one is "significantly" bolder.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 05, 2009, 09:50:09 PM
I think they're both problematic.

we've established that.  the question is, do you think that "everyone out of X school will be a good lawyer" is not a significantly bolder statement than "most people out of X school will be good lawyers"?


I don't think that's the question at all, as I think I've made my position clear.  Clearly, if I think that both phrases are equally problematic, then I don't think one is "significantly" bolder.

so your answer to my question is no, you don't think it's significantly bolder.  just wanted to be clear about what you think.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 10:00:34 PM
Ok.  Yes, the answer to your question is no.  But I thought you understood that earlier, when you said "so you're saying that "everyone out of X school will be a good lawyer" is not significantly bolder than "most people out of X school will be good lawyers"? "

Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 05, 2009, 10:01:35 PM
Ok.  Yes, the answer to your question is no.  But I thought you understood that earlier, when you said "so you're saying that "everyone out of X school will be a good lawyer" is not significantly bolder than "most people out of X school will be good lawyers"? "

i was looking for a more definitive yes/no answer.  sorry, bad habit.  i don't like making assumptions about things that are implied.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 10:03:11 PM
Ok.  Yes, the answer to your question is no.  But I thought you understood that earlier, when you said "so you're saying that "everyone out of X school will be a good lawyer" is not significantly bolder than "most people out of X school will be good lawyers"? "

i was looking for a more definitive yes/no answer.  sorry, bad habit.  i don't like making assumptions about things that are implied.

Understandable.  You're cool with me hooloovoo.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Ninja1 on August 05, 2009, 11:56:05 PM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.

Lol at this.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 05, 2009, 11:58:27 PM
Wait a second: you're not even in law school. All right, I'm done wasting time with some 0L that wants to teach me all about how the legal world works.

While I generally agree with you (and think vansondon's tantrum above is ridiculous), I don't see any reason why a 0L would necessarily know less about the hiring prospects of students at Cooley and MSU than a 1L at Chicago does. (And yes, vansondon, I understand that you are in law school; I am making a more general point.)  Neither of you is likely to have a lot of understanding of how the markets MSU and Cooley students enter work.  And neither do I, so I'll just go on instinct (and my experience looking for public sector jobs from a T2): I think vap has the best of this argument.




I'm glad you have chosen to be the voice of reason, here.  You said, you think "vap" has the best of this argument.  Who is "vap?"
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 12:00:05 AM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.

Lol at this.

Care to elaborate on your internet laughter?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Miss P on August 06, 2009, 12:01:03 AM
Well in retrospect, perhaps my response was a little ridiculous, but he insulted me first and unnecessarily.  Nevertheless, I'm glad you have chosen to be the voice of reason, here.  You said, you think "vap" has the best of this argument.  Who is "vap?"

Thanks.

S/he posted on the first page: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,4021098.msg5358252.html#msg5358252
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 12:02:58 AM
Well in retrospect, perhaps my response was a little ridiculous, but he insulted me first and unnecessarily.  Nevertheless, I'm glad you have chosen to be the voice of reason, here.  You said, you think "vap" has the best of this argument.  Who is "vap?"

Thanks.

S/he posted on the first page: http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,4021098.msg5358252.html#msg5358252

Oh, okay.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 12:30:53 AM
I didn't go to UIUC for law school.

Probably the smartest thing you've said on this thread.


lol ;D
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Ninja1 on August 06, 2009, 02:28:33 AM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.

Lol at this.

Care to elaborate on your internet laughter?

Just enjoying your vision of a world where there's basically no difference between Harvard and the People's College of Law.

Law is an elitist profession and that's the way it should remain for everyone's good. If someone can't get into at least an ABA school, they have no business entering into the legal profession. And given the recent explosion of T3s and T4s, a legal education is now overly accessible to the common man as someone with a LSAT in the high 140s and a GPA in the high 2s can probably find somewhere that's ABA to take them.

On your feeling that it should be illegal to discriminate against someone based on where they went to school, pretend you're a hiring partner somewhere and you're interviewing two recent grads that are both in their early-mid 20s and have no relevant work experience. Would you really want to pick a guy from Appalachian, FAMU, or some CBA toilet that finished slightly above median over a guy from Columbia or Virginia that finished slightly below median and would you really pay them the same that you would have paid the guy from the better school, or maybe even more since they are apparently the better candidate based on their class rank?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 07:21:49 AM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.

Lol at this.

Care to elaborate on your internet laughter?

Just enjoying your vision of a world where there's basically no difference between Harvard and the People's College of Law.

Law is an elitist profession and that's the way it should remain for everyone's good. If someone can't get into at least an ABA school, they have no business entering into the legal profession. And given the recent explosion of T3s and T4s, a legal education is now overly accessible to the common man as someone with a LSAT in the high 140s and a GPA in the high 2s can probably find somewhere that's ABA to take them.

On your feeling that it should be illegal to discriminate against someone based on where they went to school, pretend you're a hiring partner somewhere and you're interviewing two recent grads that are both in their early-mid 20s and have no relevant work experience. Would you really want to pick a guy from Appalachian, FAMU, or some CBA toilet that finished slightly above median over a guy from Columbia or Virginia that finished slightly below median and would you really pay them the same that you would have paid the guy from the better school, or maybe even more since they are apparently the better candidate based on their class rank?

Well, you shouldn't be surprised that I disagree with you.  Given how facetious you've been, I'm not sure if I should even take you seriously, here. The fact of the matter is, not you or anyone else on this planet will ever convince me that the legal profession should remain elitist (and I do think it has made some tremendous strides away from this), nor will you ever be able to justify discrimination of any kind to me.  How dare you? Foolish of you to even try.

As for your ABA-accredited comment, there are plenty of Massachusetts School of Law (a school which has taken the ABA head-on, and doesn't want accreditation for issues of access and affordability to the legal profession) graduates who have wiped the courtroom floor with graduates from ABA-accredited law schools (of all kinds), sometimes with mere procedural arguments.  Access to the legal education apparatus is about more than just an acceptance, an arbitrary  LSAT/GPA range, or some flawed four-tiered ranking system designed by U.S. News and World Report.

As for your hiring question, *tisk tisk*. I don't really understand the point of that question.  If we go with your ABA-accreditation argument, what is the point of having a uniformed code of standards and norms (ABA accreditation process), if not to proceed with the understanding that law school graduates will be equally qualified and competent for the profession?  As far as I'm concerned, an ABA-accredited school is an ABA-accredited school, and through that standard of expectation and uniformity, there should be no question that law school graduates are fundamentally equal and deserve equal pay for equal work.  At this juncture, class rank, academic performance, grades, etc, do become important in distinguishing applicants in the decision-making processes, but by the standard of accreditation, the school you went to should not matter, since all schools are meeting the same standards that legitimate their existence to graduate law students.  It should be noted that I reject any notion of aba-accredited vs. non-aba-accredited (I'm just making a more general point, here).  Moreover, the fact of the matter is, law students learn what they know from their respective faculty.  Students from perceived "lower-ranked" schools are taught by faculty from the very schools you've deemed as being "top" institutions, and vice versa.  You're not necessarily going to be a better lawyer just because you graduated from Yale as oppose to MSU. Good lawyers are going to be good lawyers, no matter which school they attend!

The reality is, many big employers act inconsistently with this elitist notion you have.  Howard University, a Tier 3 school, has just as many, if not more, big law employers recruiting (year after year after year after year) at their school as your perceived "top schools."  In this instance, these graduates are on par with graduates of higher-ranked schools; they are on equal footing; they are being hired over other graduate from "top-tier" schools.  Your argument is just ridiculous.

I've pretty much addressed this already:

I think it's unfortunate that you think anti-discrimination laws are asinine.

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It's just plain willful ignorance to posit such non-sense. Not all lawyers coming out of Yale are good, and not all lawyers coming out of Cooley are incompetent.  The moxie and overall competence of the lawyer varies from individual to individual, it is not institutionally uniformed.  You can study at the law schools of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Duke and still manage to fail the bar, just like you can graduate from Cooley and MSU and pass the bar with flying colors.

You've yet to even define "better" in this elitist thesis of yours.  Have you even an original definition to bear?  And even if you do, are you reasonable enough to recognize its inherent relativism?  No one here is denying the reality of the elitist and discriminatory perceptions governing the legal employment market, but the debate here is about whether those perceptions are valid, right, and fair.  And the answer is clear, no! Those perceptions are neither valid, right, or fair!

I reject your non-sense, and your foolish attempts to defend it.  Of course, you're still entitled to your opinion, no matter how f ucked up it is.

If lawyers coming out of less prestigious school are so bad (as you've clearly implied), to what do you owe their competence and success in the law?

Lets turn to a more neutral source; Forbes.  After all, in this superficial elitist environment you champion, money and success go hand and hand, yes?

Point to your top ivy lawyers in this list: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/132.html

And how many of these lawyers come out of your imagined argument in this list? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/134.html

Any tip top ivy-league lawyers, here? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/144.html

The former President of the ABA and current Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC is a graduate of MSU's part-time evening program for crying out loud! Plus, he's a man of color! http://www.dickinson-wright.com/atty2.aspx?user_id=ArcherDW

Sure, there are plenty of lawyers who graduated from "top" schools who are successful, no one is denying that, and if we go to Forbes, here is a small non-exhaustive list of them: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/140.html.  But there are just as many (if not more) successful lawyers coming from other schools who are just as successful, if not more.  You need to admit it.

There was a time where similar elitist perceptions like the ones you posit were used to stamp out law schools with part time programs (especially evening programs).  I wonder where Georgetown would be if those perceptions had succeeded?  There was also a time when these arguments tried to keep women and persons of color from having access to the legal education apparatus.  Had there not been "asinine anti-discrimination laws" as you call it, would a successful and competent lawyer like Mr. Dennis Archer be the Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC, or the former president of the ABA?  No.

Again, I reject your argument and your feeble attempt to defend it.  Angry

But I think it is fair to say, that given the selectivity of the "top" schools, and their small exclusive number in all of the law schools in the ABA arena, most lawyers who are successful, never attended these "top" schools.

Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 06, 2009, 07:53:21 AM
Wait a second: you're not even in law school. All right, I'm done wasting time with some 0L that wants to teach me all about how the legal world works.

While I generally agree with you (and think vansondon's tantrum above is ridiculous), I don't see any reason why a 0L would necessarily know less about the hiring prospects of students at Cooley and MSU than a 1L at Chicago does. (And yes, vansondon, I understand that you are in law school; I am making a more general point.)  Neither of you is likely to have a lot of understanding of how the markets MSU and Cooley students enter work.  And neither do I, so I'll just go on instinct (and my experience looking for public sector jobs from a T2): I think vap has the best of this argument.




I'm glad you have chosen to be the voice of reason, here.  You said, you think "vap" has the best of this argument.  Who is "vap?"

Reading comprehension FAIL
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: jbakguy on August 06, 2009, 08:34:02 AM
Why is it that these days any time I log on and see action on a thread, it is a flame war on a point argued to death in previous threads between people with entrenched positions who simply argue around each other’s points without coming to any conclusion. (oh yeah b/c we're law students  ;))

Are law school elitist? Yes. Deal with it.

Should they be? There is a valid argument that superior performance in HS and on the SAT/ACT, admission to a good UG institution, attaining a High GPA, superior performance on the LSAT, attaining a high LS GPA, Law Review etc. and performing well at a summer clerkship are a series of ever harder hurdles "jumped" by only those with superior talent or a mixture of intelligence, persistence and self discipline. Qualities which do make a "better" lawyer on day one of a professional career (This says nothing of success 10 years into a career.)

Are these hurdles easier to "jump" when you are a white kid from a rich family, or more accurately someone from a family who has the will and resources to set you up for success on that track early in life?  Absolutely. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a discussion much broader then the merits of a particular brand of legal education.

Here’s the point, and if I may be so presumptuous as to drop a little knowledge bomb on you…WHO CARES!!
Law school is about developing the skills necessary to be the best lawyer that YOU (not other guy/gal) can be and landing that FIRST job.

Are top school grads going to be offered higher paying FIRST jobs? Yes, because that is the way the Cravath model works and because top school grads have either earned the presumption that they are better by spending their young adult lives with their nose to the grindstone, or are blessed with scary talent.

Do lower tier grads have a presumption to overcome that they are less capable then the top school grads when looking for their FIRST job? Yes, because it is a fact of the for profit (some say) legal education system that nearly anyone with a pulse can get into law school somewhere.

But all these presumptions go right out the door based on your job performance. Saving your supervisors butt by catching something they missed goes a long way towards overcoming the presumption you are lesser lawyer because you went to a lower tier school.  Turning In a handful of crap memos or missing enough things in a doc review (assuming here as I am not in Biglaw) probably goes a long way towards dulling the shine of that HYS sheepskin on the wall.
The whole elitist argument is as pointless as arguing whether or not is right that the sky up because right or not you’re not walking on the clouds any time soon.

The time and effort spent on this argument is IMHO better spent prepping for 1Hell or OCI.

Also, I apologize for the negative tone as I try to be an exclusively positive poster but JTFC people, get over yourselves.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 12:24:46 PM
Wait a second: you're not even in law school. All right, I'm done wasting time with some 0L that wants to teach me all about how the legal world works.

While I generally agree with you (and think vansondon's tantrum above is ridiculous), I don't see any reason why a 0L would necessarily know less about the hiring prospects of students at Cooley and MSU than a 1L at Chicago does. (And yes, vansondon, I understand that you are in law school; I am making a more general point.)  Neither of you is likely to have a lot of understanding of how the markets MSU and Cooley students enter work.  And neither do I, so I'll just go on instinct (and my experience looking for public sector jobs from a T2): I think vap has the best of this argument.




I'm glad you have chosen to be the voice of reason, here.  You said, you think "vap" has the best of this argument.  Who is "vap?"

Reading comprehension FAIL

Yet another lousy attempt to project your inferiority complex... ::) so boring...
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 12:51:23 PM
Why is it that these days any time I log on and see action on a thread, it is a flame war on a point argued to death in previous threads between people with entrenched positions who simply argue around each other’s points without coming to any conclusion. (oh yeah b/c we're law students  ;))

Are law school elitist? Yes. Deal with it.

Should they be? There is a valid argument that superior performance in HS and on the SAT/ACT, admission to a good UG institution, attaining a High GPA, superior performance on the LSAT, attaining a high LS GPA, Law Review etc. and performing well at a summer clerkship are a series of ever harder hurdles "jumped" by only those with superior talent or a mixture of intelligence, persistence and self discipline. Qualities which do make a "better" lawyer on day one of a professional career (This says nothing of success 10 years into a career.)

Are these hurdles easier to "jump" when you are a white kid from a rich family, or more accurately someone from a family who has the will and resources to set you up for success on that track early in life?  Absolutely. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a discussion much broader then the merits of a particular brand of legal education.

Here’s the point, and if I may be so presumptuous as to drop a little knowledge bomb on you…WHO CARES!!
Law school is about developing the skills necessary to be the best lawyer that YOU (not other guy/gal) can be and landing that FIRST job.

Are top school grads going to be offered higher paying FIRST jobs? Yes, because that is the way the Cravath model works and because top school grads have either earned the presumption that they are better by spending their young adult lives with their nose to the grindstone, or are blessed with scary talent.

Do lower tier grads have a presumption to overcome that they are less capable then the top school grads when looking for their FIRST job? Yes, because it is a fact of the for profit (some say) legal education system that nearly anyone with a pulse can get into law school somewhere.

But all these presumptions go right out the door based on your job performance. Saving your supervisors butt by catching something they missed goes a long way towards overcoming the presumption you are lesser lawyer because you went to a lower tier school.  Turning In a handful of crap memos or missing enough things in a doc review (assuming here as I am not in Biglaw) probably goes a long way towards dulling the shine of that HYS sheepskin on the wall.
The whole elitist argument is as pointless as arguing whether or not is right that the sky up because right or not you’re not walking on the clouds any time soon.

The time and effort spent on this argument is IMHO better spent prepping for 1Hell or OCI.

Also, I apologize for the negative tone as I try to be an exclusively positive poster but JTFC people, get over yourselves.


Well, given the amount of effort you put into this response, apparently it isn't such a pointless argument after all.  If you think this is all a matter of getting over one's self, you're egregiously incorrect.  You directly inject your paragraphs in an argument which you claim is pointless as if your words can shut it all down and solve it all to an end.  If it's so pointless, then why even engage?  If you're so frustrated (as your negative tone would suggest), then why interject, especially under the pseudo-guise of being an intermediary? 

I think this is an important argument to have because without the rebuttal, this notion of elitism would cast a veil of false reality into the discussions of users who are genuinely looking for honest answers to their dilemmas (although, I don't think a forum like this is the best place to get answers).  Every time a user asks a "should I go to school A or school B" question, there is always some stupid elitist reason given for why he or she should choose one school over another, because if they don't then they'll be unemployed for the rest of their life and will never pass the bar.  That just isn't true! I mean it's just utter ridiculous hyperbole, and I am sick of it. Those pushing these elitist arguments offer anything but real substance; and they are all opponents of accessibility within legal education.  So that's why we're having the debate.

Are there better uses of this time and energy? Perhaps.  Am I going to expel elitism from the legal profession by arguing against it on this site?  Ummm, No.  But, for discussion's sake, I'm not going to concede anything to any elitist argument.

Despite your decrying how pointless this discussion is, I do think you've offered the most balanced response yet.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 12:57:59 PM
so what exactly is the alternative to the "elitist" outlook?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 01:03:15 PM
so what exactly is the alternative to the "elitist" outlook?

No disrespect, but if you really have to ask that question (especially at this point in the conversation), you really don't deserve an answer...
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 01:06:40 PM
it sounds like you don't actually have a viable alternative, and are just complaining because you think the world is unfair.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 01:14:35 PM
it sounds like you don't actually have a viable alternative, and are just complaining because you think the world is unfair.

No, it seems that you just have a reading comprehension problem...  I can't help you with that.  I mean it's a little pathetic if you still don't know what my position is.  And it's even more pathetic at a general level if you have to ask what the alternative is for elitism?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 01:17:56 PM
it sounds like you don't actually have a viable alternative, and are just complaining because you think the world is unfair.

It seems that you just have a reading comprehension problem...  I can't help you with that.

no, my reading comprehension is fine.  i'm just telling you how you sound.  it's not helping your position.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 01:26:47 PM
Well, first of all, you don't know what anything sounds like, since there is no "sound" component to this discussion.  If it reads a certain way to you, I think it's a matter of reading comprehension.  Second of all, speak for yourself. You have some 6 pages of discussion/debate under this topic, yet you're not able to discern my position as the alternative to the elitist perception.  I've been very clear in my position.  If you don't understand it, you either have a comprehension problem, or you haven't read it all.  I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through the alternatives, here. If you don't understand it, that isn't my problem. There is a larger narrative here, and if you can't see it, then there is no place for you in this discussion.

The only solution is for you to go away.

It isn't difficult.   ::)

Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 01:34:38 PM
The only solution is for you to go away.

yeah, i'm not going to do that.  and commenting on a person's tone is not a reading comprehension issue.  i'm just saying you sound like someone with a chip on her shoulder.  you'd be more effective if you adopted a different tone.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: soundsgood on August 06, 2009, 01:36:50 PM
I don't even see the "All TTT's are shitholes" argument in this thread.  Only that higher-ranked schools will serve most students better than lower-ranked schools in many (but not all) situations.  Illini Boy even stated that he doesn't know if elitism SHOULD exist, only that it DOES exist--and that law students should not blindly ignore it.

Vansondon, it seems you're arguing against some pretty mild (and reasonable) statements.  Maybe save some of your points for the posters that really rip on lower-ranked schools.  Law school is all about the gray area, and this discussion definitely has a ton of gray.  Painting the issue as black and white isn't gonna work.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 01:48:21 PM

Would you really want to pick a guy from Appalachian, FAMU, or some CBA toilet that finished slightly above median over a guy from Columbia or Virginia that finished slightly below median and would you really pay them the same that you would have paid the guy from the better school, or maybe even more since they are apparently the better candidate based on their class rank?

Soundsgood, I see what you mean, but don't you think the above quote falls in line the "All TTT's are shitholes" argument?  I mean "CBA toilet?" Come on!

Plus, he said, "Law is an elitist profession and that's the way it should remain for everyone's good."

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing against the fact that elitism exists in the legal education and employment apparatuses, I know it exists. I've acknowledged the reality.  I just think it's discriminatory, and it should stop.  It should be unlawful.

It's one thing to not hire someone because they have demonstrated disqualification and incompetence for the practice of law; but it's quite another thing not to hire them simply because they went to a certain school.  That's all I've been saying, here.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: soundsgood on August 06, 2009, 01:54:29 PM
Eh, maybe the language wasn't the nicest way to put it, but it is fairly common vernacular on the message boards.  If I were you, I'd try not to get bogged down by the language, and instead try to focus on the points being made.

From a quick glance, it looks like you've completely "dug in."  I think some of your points are pretty good, others are pretty indefensible.  If you'd cede some of the weaker points, I think you'd find more people in agreement with your stronger arguments.

But either way, I've been entertained by the arguing, so it is a win-win from my point-of-view, haha.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 01:55:21 PM
Plus, he said, "Law is an elitist profession and that's the way it should remain for everyone's good."

i think he means that entry into the legal profession isn't an entitlement, and that it should be reserved for those who have the capacity to act as counselors.

and that's something that you agree with, isn't that right?  you merely disagree with how we determine who has that capacity?  you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 02:00:13 PM
you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?

Yes!  That's exactly right.  That's precisely what I'm suggesting and arguing, here.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 02:00:43 PM
It's one thing to not hire someone because they have demonstrated disqualification and incompetence for the practice of law; but it's quite another thing not to hire them simply because they went to a certain school.  That's all I've been saying, here.

what if an employer only has time to interview five people for a position?  should they be required to interview everyone out there or are they allowed to use imperfect proxies to determine which five people might be the best to interview?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 02:04:25 PM
It's one thing to not hire someone because they have demonstrated disqualification and incompetence for the practice of law; but it's quite another thing not to hire them simply because they went to a certain school.  That's all I've been saying, here.

what if an employer only has time to interview five people for a position?  should they be required to interview everyone out there or are they allowed to use imperfect proxies to determine which five people might be the best to interview?

If these are five strong candidates, I don't see why it would be a hardship to interview all of them (if I understand what you're saying).  Succumbing to imperfect proxies is likely to yield imperfect results, and perhaps a disappointing hire.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 02:04:50 PM
you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?

Yes!  That's exactly right.  That's precisely what I'm suggesting and arguing, here.

what if employers have determined, through their experience over the years in hiring law school graduates, that on balance some schools produce more capable lawyers than others?  for example, say an employer has hired people from two schools for the past 20 years (we'll call these hypothetical schools "boalt" and "uchicago" to be random), and that it's found that in general, graduates of boalt are awesome and graduates from uchicago are mediocre at best?  should it still not be allowed to favor boalt graduates over uchicago graduates?

but you're saying this doesn't happen, and that really what's going on is that employers aren't using their past hiring experiences as a guide, but instead are just going by what some magazine tells them.  is that right?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 02:05:42 PM
If these are five strong candidates, I don't see why it would be a hardship to interview all of them (if I understand what you're saying).  Succumbing to imperfect proxies is likely to yield imperfect results, and perhaps a disappointing hire.

that's not what i'm saying.  the employer has time to interview five people.  there are hundreds of applicants.  how does it determine which five get past the resume review and get in the door for an interview? 
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 02:20:10 PM
you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?

Yes!  That's exactly right.  That's precisely what I'm suggesting and arguing, here.

what if employers have determined, through their experience over the years in hiring law school graduates, that on balance some schools produce more capable lawyers than others?  for example, say an employer has hired people from two schools for the past 20 years (we'll call these hypothetical schools "boalt" and "uchicago" to be random), and that it's found that in general, graduates of boalt are awesome and graduates from uchicago are mediocre at best?  should it still not be allowed to favor boalt graduates over uchicago graduates?

but you're saying this doesn't happen, and that really what's going on is that employers aren't using their past hiring experiences as a guide, but instead are just going by what some magazine tells them.  is that right?

That might be plausible, but the problem with that is one runs into what I call "institutional determinism," where in the absence of a decent to thorough review of an applicant, one is determined to be a certain kind of lawyer because of the institution s/he attended.  You're bound to run into a snag in this instance, because you might get an associate from boalt who isn't quite up to par, at the expense of the uchicago applicant.  And then the method exposes its flaw.

The other problem with this bivariate scenario is this implicit "causal" relationship between one's law school and one's performance on the job.  It may be plausible that associates who are doing well under a particular employer happen to have all gone to the same school, but my problem is when one assumes that the reason for them doing well has everything to do with their school.  Rather than linking the causation to the school, the employer might be better served to seek out the qualities of his or her most successful associates in their applicants (regardless of the school they went to). For instance, maybe the quality is excellent work-ethic, or an excellent legal-writing capacity, well an employer can look for these qualities independently, and find them among a diverse array of applicants from all law schools, and get the same results in terms of having successful associates on staff.  This way, the employer won't run into a slump by picking new hires blindly by virtue of the name of the school they attended.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 02:24:26 PM
you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?

Yes!  That's exactly right.  That's precisely what I'm suggesting and arguing, here.

what if employers have determined, through their experience over the years in hiring law school graduates, that on balance some schools produce more capable lawyers than others?  for example, say an employer has hired people from two schools for the past 20 years (we'll call these hypothetical schools "boalt" and "uchicago" to be random), and that it's found that in general, graduates of boalt are awesome and graduates from uchicago are mediocre at best?  should it still not be allowed to favor boalt graduates over uchicago graduates?

but you're saying this doesn't happen, and that really what's going on is that employers aren't using their past hiring experiences as a guide, but instead are just going by what some magazine tells them.  is that right?

That might be plausible, but the problem with that is one runs into what I call "institutional determinism," where in the absence of a decent to thorough review of an applicant, one is determined to be a certain kind of lawyer because of the institution s/he attended.  You're bound to run into a snag in this instance, because you might get an associate from boalt who isn't quite up to par, at the expense of the uchicago applicant.  And then the method exposes its flaw.

The other problem with this bivariate scenario is this implicit "causal" relationship between one's law school and one's performance on the job.  It may be plausible that associates who are doing well under a particular employer happen to have all gone to the same school, but my problem is when one assumes that the reason for them doing well has everything to do with their school.  Rather than linking the causation to the school, the employer might be better served to seek out the qualities of his or her most successful associates in their applicants (regardless of the school they went to). For instance, maybe the quality is excellent work-ethic, or an excellent legal-writing capacity, well an employer can look for these qualities independently, and find them among a diverse array of applicants from all law schools, and get the same results in terms of having successful associates on staff.  This way, the employer won't run into a slump by picking new hires blindly by virtue of the name of the school they attended.

the problem is that information is costly to attain.  in the absence of cheap information that would easily allow an employer to determine whether or not a candidate will be a good lawyer, why shouldn't they use the best proxy that they've found?  why should it be illegal for them to do so?

it's a heck of a lot easier to look at the school on a person's resume than to read hundreds or thousands of writing samples.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 02:31:55 PM
You've missed the point, entirely.

let me see if i can go back and dig it up.

you're saying that there is no causal relationship between where one attends law school and how capable one is as a lawyer.  was that your point?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Ninja1 on August 06, 2009, 02:32:57 PM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.

Lol at this.

Care to elaborate on your internet laughter?

Just enjoying your vision of a world where there's basically no difference between Harvard and the People's College of Law.

Law is an elitist profession and that's the way it should remain for everyone's good. If someone can't get into at least an ABA school, they have no business entering into the legal profession. And given the recent explosion of T3s and T4s, a legal education is now overly accessible to the common man as someone with a LSAT in the high 140s and a GPA in the high 2s can probably find somewhere that's ABA to take them.

On your feeling that it should be illegal to discriminate against someone based on where they went to school, pretend you're a hiring partner somewhere and you're interviewing two recent grads that are both in their early-mid 20s and have no relevant work experience. Would you really want to pick a guy from Appalachian, FAMU, or some CBA toilet that finished slightly above median over a guy from Columbia or Virginia that finished slightly below median and would you really pay them the same that you would have paid the guy from the better school, or maybe even more since they are apparently the better candidate based on their class rank?

Well, you shouldn't be surprised that I disagree with you.  Given how facetious you've been, I'm not sure if I should even take you seriously, here. The fact of the matter is, not you or anyone else on this planet will ever convince me that the legal profession should remain elitist (and I do think it has made some tremendous strides away from this), nor will you ever be able to justify discrimination of any kind to me.  How dare you? Foolish of you to even try.

As for your ABA-accredited comment, there are plenty of Massachusetts School of Law (a school which has taken the ABA head-on, and doesn't want accreditation for issues of access and affordability to the legal profession) graduates who have wiped the courtroom floor with graduates from ABA-accredited law schools (of all kinds), sometimes with mere procedural arguments.  Access to the legal education apparatus is about more than just an acceptance, an arbitrary  LSAT/GPA range, or some flawed four-tiered ranking system designed by U.S. News and World Report.

As for your hiring question, *tisk tisk*. I don't really understand the point of that question.  If we go with your ABA-accreditation argument, what is the point of having a uniformed code of standards and norms (ABA accreditation process), if not to proceed with the understanding that law school graduates will be equally qualified and competent for the profession?  As far as I'm concerned, an ABA-accredited school is an ABA-accredited school, and through that standard of expectation and uniformity, there should be no question that law school graduates are fundamentally equal and deserve equal pay for equal work.  At this juncture, class rank, academic performance, grades, etc, do become important in distinguishing applicants in the decision-making processes, but by the standard of accreditation, the school you went to should not matter, since all schools are meeting the same standards that legitimate their existence to graduate law students.  It should be noted that I reject any notion of aba-accredited vs. non-aba-accredited (I'm just making a more general point, here).  Moreover, the fact of the matter is, law students learn what they know from their respective faculty.  Students from perceived "lower-ranked" schools are taught by faculty from the very schools you've deemed as being "top" institutions, and vice versa.  You're not necessarily going to be a better lawyer just because you graduated from Yale as oppose to MSU. Good lawyers are going to be good lawyers, no matter which school they attend!

The reality is, many big employers act inconsistently with this elitist notion you have.  Howard University, a Tier 3 school, has just as many, if not more, big law employers recruiting (year after year after year after year) at their school as your perceived "top schools."  In this instance, these graduates are on par with graduates of higher-ranked schools; they are on equal footing; they are being hired over other graduate from "top-tier" schools.  Your argument is just ridiculous.

...
 

I'm not trying to convince you, just putting my $.02 out there.

On the Massachusetts School of Law example, it's not that surprising that some of their grads have beat some ABA grads, they're going to get a lot of chances. Each case is a new battle, and even the little guy wins sometimes. Lots of people have also successfully represented themselves in court, it still doesn't make them good lawyers. And why is the floor wipe analogy always used in these situations ("I've seen [Cooley/T4/Non-ABA] grads wipe the floor with [T14/ABA] grads")?

I like that you didn't answer my hiring question, just prattled on.

This, "Students from perceived 'lower-ranked' schools are taught by faculty from the very schools you've deemed as being 'top' institutions, and vice versa.", is just plain wrong. Go look at the faculty page for any T3/4. They might have a few grads from good schools (and "good" is usually going to mean somewhere like Tennessee or North Carolina, not Harvard or Columbia), but most of their profs are from either the school itself or a similarly situated school. And you're not going to be finding T3/4 grads teaching at T1/2 schools in any significant number. Maybe you'll get 1 per school in the T50 and they'll probably be teaching a clinic.

On hiring practices being inconsistent with my "law is elitist" view, Howard is a bull example and you know it. The reason Howard has such good placement given its rank is because its the only HBCU law school that's worth a damn. Try to find any other school in the entire T3 and T4 that comes close to Howard's placement rates. You can't, because no such place exists. Howard is a unique outlier, not an example. If Miami took on Howard's racial makeup, they'd probably out place half of the T14. And see the chart for my evidence that hiring practices are much more closely aligned to my view:

http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/composite.pdf
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Ninja1 on August 06, 2009, 02:35:22 PM
you're suggesting that there is absolutely no relationship between that capacity and what school a person attends?

Yes!  That's exactly right.  That's precisely what I'm suggesting and arguing, here.

what if employers have determined, through their experience over the years in hiring law school graduates, that on balance some schools produce more capable lawyers than others?  for example, say an employer has hired people from two schools for the past 20 years (we'll call these hypothetical schools "boalt" and "uchicago" to be random), and that it's found that in general, graduates of boalt are awesome and graduates from uchicago are mediocre at best?  should it still not be allowed to favor boalt graduates over uchicago graduates?

but you're saying this doesn't happen, and that really what's going on is that employers aren't using their past hiring experiences as a guide, but instead are just going by what some magazine tells them.  is that right?

That might be plausible, but the problem with that is one runs into what I call "institutional determinism," where in the absence of a decent to thorough review of an applicant, one is determined to be a certain kind of lawyer because of the institution s/he attended.  You're bound to run into a snag in this instance, because you might get an associate from boalt who isn't quite up to par, at the expense of the uchicago applicant.  And then the method exposes its flaw.

The other problem with this bivariate scenario is this implicit "causal" relationship between one's law school and one's performance on the job.  It may be plausible that associates who are doing well under a particular employer happen to have all gone to the same school, but my problem is when one assumes that the reason for them doing well has everything to do with their school.  Rather than linking the causation to the school, the employer might be better served to seek out the qualities of his or her most successful associates in their applicants (regardless of the school they went to). For instance, maybe the quality is excellent work-ethic, or an excellent legal-writing capacity, well an employer can look for these qualities independently, and find them among a diverse array of applicants from all law schools, and get the same results in terms of having successful associates on staff.  This way, the employer won't run into a slump by picking new hires blindly by virtue of the name of the school they attended.

the problem is that information is costly to attain.  in the absence of cheap information that would easily allow an employer to determine whether or not a candidate will be a good lawyer, why shouldn't they use the best proxy that they've found?  why should it be illegal for them to do so?

it's a heck of a lot easier to look at the school on a person's resume than to read hundreds or thousands of writing samples.

This is right.

The name in the frame is a good way to start screening and it's a really cheap way to do it.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: big - fat - box on August 06, 2009, 02:35:33 PM
One quick comment:

For a lot of legal jobs or internship, there are way more apps than spots available. There are way more apps than the employer can feasibly interview. There are way more apps than the employer can comb through. It's not an exact science, but the employer or the person whose job it is to go through those apps is going to do anything they can to thin the pile out. For different employers, there are different ways of doing this.

Such as:

Only hiring from top schools, only hiring from schools that lawyers at the employer went to, only hiring people they personally know, only hiring people with very high grades,  only hiring attractive women or fratboys, randomly picking apps out of a shuffled pile, whatever, etc.

Maybe none of this is fair, but it happens in reality. I can tell you right now there is nothing you can do to change it. You just have to make the best of your own situation within the system.

With the big firms, a lot comes down to marketing and justifying the high billing rates to rates to clients. They say, "well, our billing rates are high because we have to pay out huge salaries to recruit the best and brightest young associates and retain the most experienced partners." To some big corporation, best and brightest simply translates to Harvard et al.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 02:41:40 PM
Maybe none of this is fair, but it happens in reality. I can tell you right now there is nothing you can do to change it.

i disagree that this is the case in the long run.  we can probably develop systems to make it easier for employers to select good candidates based on more than just school.  we just haven't done it yet.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 02:43:20 PM
You've missed the point, entirely.

let me see if i can go back and dig it up.

you're saying that there is no causal relationship between where one attends law school and how capable one is as a lawyer.  was that your point?


You've missed the point, entirely.  Alright. So then, what if an employer claims that in 20 years of experience, they've somehow arrived at the notion that their white lawyers are as you say "awesome" and their lawyers of color are just "mediocre?"  Is this a best proxy?  Should the employer just go along with this proxy?  And what would be the consequences of going along with this proxy?  What would be suspiciously problematic about it?

Or what if an employer finds that their male lawyers are "awesome" and that their female lawyers are "mediocre?"  How should they proceed with that proxy?  Or what if an employer finds that their protestant lawyers are "awesome" and their Hindu lawyers are "mediocre?"  What should that employer do with that proxy?

My point is, one's law school as a determining factor is just as ridiculous, problematic, and arbitrary as a "best proxy" as any of the above.  Moreover, it's never just one variable that causes a particular result, it's a culmination of many variables, and as an employer, you have to be able to recognize these variables.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: big - fat - box on August 06, 2009, 02:44:40 PM
Ninja, I think you're wrong about profs at lower ranked schools. While some lower ranked schools do have a lot of non-top profs on the faculty, they are usually older profs. It's highly possible that those older faculty members could not get hired at the school they teach at today.

Because of the USNews rankings, it is becoming more and more common for lower ranked schools to recruit profs that went to top schools and had fed clerkships. The number of top school grads that want to be law profs also plays into this.

For example, at the random tier 2/3 school I spent 1L at, I had profs that had gone to NYU, Yale, and Michigan. Most of the recent hires were of that ilk. The older faculty members were from an even mix of low ranked and high ranked schools. All of them either had super succesful careers or had graduated high in their class and done fed clerkships.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 02:47:36 PM
You've missed the point, entirely.

let me see if i can go back and dig it up.

you're saying that there is no causal relationship between where one attends law school and how capable one is as a lawyer.  was that your point?


You've missed the point, entirely.  Alright. So then, what if an employer claims that in 20 years of experience, they've somehow arrived at the notion that their white lawyers are as you say "awesome" and their lawyers of color are just "mediocre?"  Is this a best proxy?  Should the employer just go along with this proxy?  And what would be the consequences of going along with this proxy?  What would be suspiciously problematic about it?

Or what if an employer finds that their male lawyers are "awesome" and that their female lawyers are "mediocre?"  How should they proceed with that proxy?  Or what if an employer finds that their protestant lawyers are "awesome" and their Hindu lawyers are "mediocre?"  What should that employer do with that proxy?

My point is, one's law school as a determining factor is just as ridiculous, problematic, and arbitrary as a "best proxy" as any of the above.  Moreover, it's never just one variable that causes a particular result, it's a culmination of many variables, and as an employer, you have to be able to recognize these variables.

so your basic point is that people who go to lower-ranked schools should be a protected class like people of particular racial, ethnic, religious or gender groups, is that right?  discrimination based on school ranking is just as bad as discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or gender?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 06, 2009, 02:54:03 PM
Quote
My point is, one's law school as a determining factor is just as ridiculous, problematic, and arbitrary as a "best proxy" as any of the above.

Logic FAIL. Students don't get randomly assigned to law schools. The best schools cherrypick the candidates that are most likely to be good lawyers in the future. The other schools are left with the rest. People are randomly born male, or black, or any of those other factors you mention. People don't randomly get into Yale. Your analogy is flawed.

I don't think that the best schools make the best lawyers. The students that enter the top schools are already better. The top schools just have to not screw them up. If Cooley and Yale were equal, Cooley would have to be so much better than Yale that they could take marginal undergraduate students with bad LSAT scores and other soft factors and make them as good at practicing law as people that have far surpassed them in academic and other achievement previously.

It's increasingly apparant that you're just trying to rationalize your own credentials. The funny thing is that I don't think all T3 or T4 students are destined to be horrible lawyers. It's pretty clear that you are though.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 03:00:14 PM
It's increasingly apparant that you're just trying to rationalize your own credentials.

to be fair, your position and mine are just as self-interested as his.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 06, 2009, 03:02:12 PM
It's increasingly apparant that you're just trying to rationalize your own credentials.

to be fair, your position and mine are just as self-interested as his.

True. But we don't bear the burden of proving that our position isn't batshit crazy, so there's that.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 03:04:28 PM
True. But we don't bear the burden of proving that our position isn't batshit crazy, so there's that.

it's always easier to argue for the status quo.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: big - fat - box on August 06, 2009, 03:12:47 PM
Years from now, if you happen to be making hiring decisions, you can do whatever you want. Until then (unless you go into solo practice after law school) you're stuck with the hiring system currently in place. Arguing about it 'til you're blue in the face is pointless.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 06, 2009, 03:13:31 PM
True. But we don't bear the burden of proving that our position isn't batshit crazy, so there's that.

it's always easier to argue for the status quo.

I'm not arguing for anything. I think that T3 or T6 or T14 or tier distinctions are fairly arbitrary. I haven't said anything about the things should be.

It's actually a very simple question, in the end: how could schools with less restrictive admissions standards produce better lawyers than schools with more restrictive admissions standards? If that were true, the Yales of the world would actually be doing a worse job at educating students than the Cooleys of the world, since the Cooleys of the world have to close the gap they have from the beginning. The Yales of the world would be doing a worse job despite having 1.) their pick of faculty, 2.) better facilities, and 3.) more money.

[quietly awaits a diatribe on "the inequities of the paradigm and the bifurcated stratification of legal education]
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: hooloovoo on August 06, 2009, 03:17:13 PM
True. But we don't bear the burden of proving that our position isn't batshit crazy, so there's that.

it's always easier to argue for the status quo.

I'm not arguing for anything.

poor choice of words on my part.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 03:44:03 PM
Quote
My point is, one's law school as a determining factor is just as ridiculous, problematic, and arbitrary as a "best proxy" as any of the above.

Logic FAIL. People are randomly born male, or black, or any of those other factors you mention. People don't randomly get into Yale. Your analogy is flawed.


Oh yes, I love it when you talk to me all dirty!  :-*  Sexy!

And just for the record, there is nothing flawed about my analogy.  Actually, many people do choose their religious affiliation.  And you can substitute other categories, like political affiliation, or source of income (protected classes).  People have plenty of latitude and random space in choosing this.  So inasmuch  as I acknowledge your rebuttal, my analogy stands firm.  Of course, it doesn't surprise me that you aren't smart enough to know any of this.

Just be glad you aren't having this conversation with me in-person.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 04:02:28 PM
I think it's a shame that there is this unfortunate and elitist perception fueling the dilemmas of this discussion, but I acknowledge the unfortunate reality.  As I see it, it really shouldn't matter which law school you go to (of any tier, whether ABA accredited or not), as long as the school offers a solid legal education and there is some national uniformity in standards.  Unfortunately, employers do place a high premium on this.  I feel like it should be illegal to discriminate against someone because of the school s/he attended.  It is all so arbitrary and ridiculous.

Lol at this.

Care to elaborate on your internet laughter?

Just enjoying your vision of a world where there's basically no difference between Harvard and the People's College of Law.

Law is an elitist profession and that's the way it should remain for everyone's good. If someone can't get into at least an ABA school, they have no business entering into the legal profession. And given the recent explosion of T3s and T4s, a legal education is now overly accessible to the common man as someone with a LSAT in the high 140s and a GPA in the high 2s can probably find somewhere that's ABA to take them.

On your feeling that it should be illegal to discriminate against someone based on where they went to school, pretend you're a hiring partner somewhere and you're interviewing two recent grads that are both in their early-mid 20s and have no relevant work experience. Would you really want to pick a guy from Appalachian, FAMU, or some CBA toilet that finished slightly above median over a guy from Columbia or Virginia that finished slightly below median and would you really pay them the same that you would have paid the guy from the better school, or maybe even more since they are apparently the better candidate based on their class rank?

Well, you shouldn't be surprised that I disagree with you.  Given how facetious you've been, I'm not sure if I should even take you seriously, here. The fact of the matter is, not you or anyone else on this planet will ever convince me that the legal profession should remain elitist (and I do think it has made some tremendous strides away from this), nor will you ever be able to justify discrimination of any kind to me.  How dare you? Foolish of you to even try.

As for your ABA-accredited comment, there are plenty of Massachusetts School of Law (a school which has taken the ABA head-on, and doesn't want accreditation for issues of access and affordability to the legal profession) graduates who have wiped the courtroom floor with graduates from ABA-accredited law schools (of all kinds), sometimes with mere procedural arguments.  Access to the legal education apparatus is about more than just an acceptance, an arbitrary  LSAT/GPA range, or some flawed four-tiered ranking system designed by U.S. News and World Report.

As for your hiring question, *tisk tisk*. I don't really understand the point of that question.  If we go with your ABA-accreditation argument, what is the point of having a uniformed code of standards and norms (ABA accreditation process), if not to proceed with the understanding that law school graduates will be equally qualified and competent for the profession?  As far as I'm concerned, an ABA-accredited school is an ABA-accredited school, and through that standard of expectation and uniformity, there should be no question that law school graduates are fundamentally equal and deserve equal pay for equal work.  At this juncture, class rank, academic performance, grades, etc, do become important in distinguishing applicants in the decision-making processes, but by the standard of accreditation, the school you went to should not matter, since all schools are meeting the same standards that legitimate their existence to graduate law students.  It should be noted that I reject any notion of aba-accredited vs. non-aba-accredited (I'm just making a more general point, here).  Moreover, the fact of the matter is, law students learn what they know from their respective faculty.  Students from perceived "lower-ranked" schools are taught by faculty from the very schools you've deemed as being "top" institutions, and vice versa.  You're not necessarily going to be a better lawyer just because you graduated from Yale as oppose to MSU. Good lawyers are going to be good lawyers, no matter which school they attend!

The reality is, many big employers act inconsistently with this elitist notion you have.  Howard University, a Tier 3 school, has just as many, if not more, big law employers recruiting (year after year after year after year) at their school as your perceived "top schools."  In this instance, these graduates are on par with graduates of higher-ranked schools; they are on equal footing; they are being hired over other graduate from "top-tier" schools.  Your argument is just ridiculous.

...
 

I'm not trying to convince you, just putting my $.02 out there.

On the Massachusetts School of Law example, it's not that surprising that some of their grads have beat some ABA grads, they're going to get a lot of chances. Each case is a new battle, and even the little guy wins sometimes. Lots of people have also successfully represented themselves in court, it still doesn't make them good lawyers. And why is the floor wipe analogy always used in these situations ("I've seen [Cooley/T4/Non-ABA] grads wipe the floor with [T14/ABA] grads")?

I like that you didn't answer my hiring question, just prattled on.

This, "Students from perceived 'lower-ranked' schools are taught by faculty from the very schools you've deemed as being 'top' institutions, and vice versa.", is just plain wrong. Go look at the faculty page for any T3/4. They might have a few grads from good schools (and "good" is usually going to mean somewhere like Tennessee or North Carolina, not Harvard or Columbia), but most of their profs are from either the school itself or a similarly situated school. And you're not going to be finding T3/4 grads teaching at T1/2 schools in any significant number. Maybe you'll get 1 per school in the T50 and they'll probably be teaching a clinic.

On hiring practices being inconsistent with my "law is elitist" view, Howard is a bull example and you know it. The reason Howard has such good placement given its rank is because its the only HBCU law school that's worth a damn. Try to find any other school in the entire T3 and T4 that comes close to Howard's placement rates. You can't, because no such place exists. Howard is a unique outlier, not an example. If Miami took on Howard's racial makeup, they'd probably out place half of the T14. And see the chart for my evidence that hiring practices are much more closely aligned to my view:

http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/composite.pdf

mmmm... sounds delicious... :-*
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: jbakguy on August 06, 2009, 04:12:42 PM
Years from now, if you happen to be making hiring decisions, you can do whatever you want. Until then (unless you go into solo practice after law school) you're stuck with the hiring system currently in place. Arguing about it 'til you're blue in the face is pointless.

Which was my point exactly in my earlier post (which seems to have been deleted from the thread)  ??? Although the topic itself is important, especially if one is a median lower tier student pissed that biglaw is not banging down their door, the effort expended in this particular discussion could likely be better spent elsewhere, Like working to make yourself the kind of grad that bucks the trend.

Also, I was not trying to interject as some kind of impartial mediator which is impossible as I am a student at a lower tier school, I was just grumpy because my coffee had not kicked in.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 04:20:11 PM
Years from now, if you happen to be making hiring decisions, you can do whatever you want. Until then (unless you go into solo practice after law school) you're stuck with the hiring system currently in place. Arguing about it 'til you're blue in the face is pointless.

Which was my point exactly in my earlier post (which seems to have been deleted from the thread)  ??? Although the topic itself is important, especially if one is a median lower tier student pissed that biglaw is not banging down their door, the effort expended in this particular discussion could likely be better spent elsewhere, Like working to make yourself the kind of grad that bucks the trend.

Also, I was not trying to interject as some kind of impartial mediator which is impossible as I am a student at a lower tier school, I was just grumpy because my coffee had not kicked in.

Yeah, a lot of my responses in this thread have been deleted too (although, I suspect the vulgar language they contained might have something to do with it). lol 

I apologize if I misunderstood your point.  I do understand your position, and Big-Fat-box's point as well; I'm just not going to allow these elitist arguments to go on unchallenged.

I don't drink coffee, so I don't know what it's like to have caffeine withdrawals... lol
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vap on August 06, 2009, 05:58:29 PM
Holy hell.  This thread jumped seven pages in a day?  LSD has some life blood in it after all...

I haven't read them yet, but I'll respond.

MSU easily.

http://www.law.com/img/nlj/charts/composite.pdf

I don't see how the NLJ placement stats (or the employment stats in general, excluding academic attrition and transfers) support choosing MSU.  MSU's 3% NLJ placement, compared to Cooley's 0%, doesn't justify the transfer, IMO. 


It's not about the left side of the graph, it's about the right and the middle. MSU doesn't get people into prestigious firms at any great rate, but they do get them through school and into jobs at a much greater rate than Cooley.

I believe if OP can hold it down at Cooley, they can probably hold it down at MSU.

I think the attrition rate and transfer rate are not relevant now that "the friend" is a 2L with law review and moot court opportunities in hand.  I'm not very familiar with the Michigan hiring scene, but my guess is that a Cooley grad with law review and moot court is likely to secure a job easier than an MSU grad without either of those qualifications.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vap on August 06, 2009, 06:06:17 PM
I think vap has the best of this argument.

I got a thumbs up from Miss P?  I feel famous.  ;D
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Illini Boy on August 06, 2009, 07:26:39 PM
Quote
Just be glad you aren't having this conversation with me in-person.

 :D :D :D Internet tough guy.  :D :D :D
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 07:38:53 PM
Quote
Just be glad you aren't having this conversation with me in-person.

 :D :D :D Internet tough guy.  :D :D :D

Is that all you got?!  You're so weak!!


 :D  :D :D Internet punk ass b itch!  ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: vansondon on August 06, 2009, 08:09:24 PM
It's increasingly apparant that you're just trying to rationalize your own credentials.

to be fair, your position and mine are just as self-interested as his.

True. But we don't bear the burden of proving that our position isn't batshit crazy, so there's that.

And you can lick it up...
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Frogconcept on August 06, 2009, 09:08:37 PM
As a current Cooley student, I can say that having opened this thread to the last page and seen the posts, I'm looking forward to finishing studying for the night, pouring a nice Jameson on the rocks, and reading the back and forth hyperbole coming from both sides of whatever argument happened here. 
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: JeNeSaisLaw on August 06, 2009, 11:23:37 PM
tag!

hooloovoo has thoroughly impressed me in this thread.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: xxspykex on August 07, 2009, 02:18:56 AM
Years from now, if you happen to be making hiring decisions, you can do whatever you want. Until then (unless you go into solo practice after law school) you're stuck with the hiring system currently in place. Arguing about it 'til you're blue in the face is pointless.

Which was my point exactly in my earlier post (which seems to have been deleted from the thread)  ??? Although the topic itself is important, especially if one is a median lower tier student pissed that biglaw is not banging down their door, the effort expended in this particular discussion could likely be better spent elsewhere, Like working to make yourself the kind of grad that bucks the trend.

Also, I was not trying to interject as some kind of impartial mediator which is impossible as I am a student at a lower tier school, I was just grumpy because my coffee had not kicked in.

Yeah, a lot of my responses in this thread have been deleted too (although, I suspect the vulgar language they contained might have something to do with it). lol 


This website is goofy as hell. It did that with my posts as well. The posts go away when it goes to a new page for so many posts and then they come back after it hits the following page or something like that... Guess that's what happens when you use a forum that looks like it was designed in 1973.
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: xxspykex on August 07, 2009, 02:20:27 AM
Deleted.

--post edited by EC
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Miss P on August 07, 2009, 02:25:44 AM
As a current Cooley student, I can say that having opened this thread to the last page and seen the posts, I'm looking forward to finishing studying for the night, pouring a nice Jameson on the rocks, and reading the back and forth hyperbole coming from both sides of whatever argument happened here. 

Perhaps you should consider drinking rubbing alcohol instead of Jameson... Probably a large quantity would do you well.

Take it to xoxo, will you? 
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: jbakguy on August 07, 2009, 07:16:47 AM
Good morning all

Looking forward to more LSD hijinks today, Keep it coming!
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: Frogconcept on August 07, 2009, 12:45:50 PM
As a current Cooley student, I can say that having opened this thread to the last page and seen the posts, I'm looking forward to finishing studying for the night, pouring a nice Jameson on the rocks, and reading the back and forth hyperbole coming from both sides of whatever argument happened here. 

Perhaps you should consider drinking rubbing alcohol instead of Jameson... Probably a large quantity would do you well.

Oh...snap...?
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: profc on August 29, 2013, 09:52:45 AM
I remember reading this a year or two ago and think it needs to be updated!  MSU does now allow transfer students to get on both Law Review and Moot Court.  Law Review offers a write-on opportunity for transfers and Moot Court offers a spring seminar that allows students to get elected to the Moot Court Board. There is a transfer student on this Board this year (2013-2014)!  Cheers -
Title: Re: Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?
Post by: livinglegend on September 07, 2013, 12:27:08 AM
(I'm passing this question along for a friend)

A friend of mine is a 1L at Cooley and has okay, but not great, stats all around (Decent LSAT and UGPA, lured to Cooley by a scholarship, top 22%). With her numbers right now she's got a presumptive invite to Cooley's law review prereq (they make students take an additional writing class before they get on LR) and an invite to the moot court class. She was also admitted as a transfer to Michigan State University (T3).

MSU apparently isn't super nice to transfers. To do law review you need to participate in the write-on competition in the spring, and you can't even participate in that unless you have their two writing classes or get a waiver (which, if I understood her right, isn't available until after you're accepted). She's missed this year's competition, and apparently she can't do next year's because she'll only have a year left. She says that moot court is basically closed off as well.

She doesn't care where she gets a job, as long as she gets one. Cooley with law review would apparently do okay within Michigan, but, as I think we all are aware, the school isn't really respected outside of the Midwest.

What would you guys do if you were in her situation?

I tried breaking it down into a pro/con.

Staying at Cooley
Pros: Law review. Moot court. Decent placement in Michigan. So many people transfer out that her GPA (and rank) will probably shoot up next year.
Cons: It's probably the most derided T4 in the country. Little employment prospects outside of Michigan and almost zero outside of the midwest. Having to hide your diploma in shame.

Transferring to MSU
Pros: It's not Cooley. Has been on the rise since merging with MSU (I think it'll probably settle as a low T2, somewhere near DePaul). National name recognition.

Do you guys have any other thoughts? What would you do if you were in her situation? ???

It is always tough and my personal feeling with transferring is if you are doing well in an academic setting why rock the boat. Maybe if she was transferring to University of Michigan or an elite institution a transfer might be a good idea, but to transfer schools in the same location to one that is only slight more regarded might not be worth the change.

What your friend should do is negotiate for more scholarship money from Cooley they will not want to lose a top student and your friend may be able to to get 10-20k or more in scholarship money simply by asking.

Another thing to consider when transferring is the individuals personality after 1L clicks are formed and if you attend a new school and are not extremly outgoing it could be a depressing final two years. Also if the student has a chance to be on Law Review have great contacts with professors at Cooley that is more impressive than graduating from MSU. I think employers are more impressed by someone doing extremely well at a less regarded school opposed to a run of the mill student at a more highly regarded school.

Bottom line if I was your friend I would fill out a transfer application and try to get some scholarship money. If Cooley doesn't offer anything then consider actually transferring, but I imagine Cooley will give your friend a little extra cash if she negotiates properly.