« on: February 11, 2009, 11:48:39 AM »
You just described how you had a hard time getting a job out of undergrad because nobody had heard of your small liberal arts college. It's the same thing in law. Why in the world would somebody hire you from a law school that they've never heard from, has ZERO alumni representing the school in the firm, and has a bad reputation?
People will continue to ask the tier 1 or tttt for $$ question. Of those that go tttt, some will make it. Some. I'm talking a very small percentage.
Please allow me to turn the assumption on its head. I certainly wouldn't want to go to a school that has terrible long-term job prospects over one that has good ones if I could afford the better one (which, frankly, is an issue itself). What I am wondering is whether the better school really has the recruiting pull that everyone seems to think it does, and if so, does that extend to people who are not in the top 5% or so? By all rights, my undergraduate school should have had people beating the door down to hire all the smart and mature people going there, but it didn't. If the recruiting really isn't all it's cracked up to be, all I'll have accomplished is acquiring a zillion dollars of debt. People on this board seem pretty sure that higher rank always equals better prospects, but experience has made me wary. I'm sure that folks at, say, Harvard have firms lining up around the block to hire them for high-paying jobs, but what about Tulane, Wake Forest, or Temple? Looking at some average salary data and hiring prospects between schools in lower T2 and T4 hasn't been reassuring.