I found a thread on 2L Search that speaks directly to this topic, and it was started by a nervous HLS student at the median:

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,4011586.0.html

See, he's nervous like everyone else at the median, and knows what is stake in 2L. And he's not precisely sure he can just coast and get a great firm job -- and doesn't seem to want to coast. Plus the "go f yourself" poster is exactly the kind of poster I don't like.

He does mention something insightful, though, that I hadn't considered: The real competition at Harvard's top is not for  firm work; it's for federal circuit and district court clerkships, of which they probably attain quite a few. The Harvard pool for firms, then, starts a little lower down the list. While we place a couple or a few federal clerks, we certainly don't infiltrate the federal bench as much as HYS does.

So, this topic comes more into focus now. It's good to have some clarity. 

I apologize if I touched a nerve or offended anyone here with the "lazy unaccomplished boob" wording ... I'm a bit of a fabulist with language at times. Point I was making was this: I understand that most people who attend law school, any law school, worked hard to be there and work hard to learn the law and make the grade. The assertion, however, that the *very bottom* of a school's class would have an advantage over someone with let's say a top-third rank at another school in a good legal market bothers me. Granted, the bottom of HLS' class doesn't face the same fate as the bottom of mine -- we have a 2.0 minimum grade requirement at the end of 1L to maintain admission, and the bottom 10% upon graduation may never practice law at all (and probably shouldn't). Yet just as the top is generally at the top for a reason -- the top of my class worked incredibly hard to be there, with luck factoring in only marginally -- so too is the bottom generally at the bottom for a reason. And by bottom, I mean bottom, not median or 40% or 65%. I just can't fathom how No. 600-something at HLS can be a fate of little consequence in terms of entry-level positioning. That means you got outperformed at something by more than *600* other people; and that's ugly. And please don't tell me No. 600-something would still outperform anyone at Pace, because that's nonsense.

And how am I a [p]ussy, as someone upthread insinuated? That's an odd thing to say.

Quote from: vap on July 08, 2008, 05:07:05 PM

I disagree.

Less schools = smaller supply of legal services = higher fees from clients = better for lawyer's pockets.
More schools = larger supply of legal services = lower fees from clients = better for the world.

I think the biggest problem is that lawyers are greedy, the probable reason being that law school is expensive.  Although, there are a lot of people with a sense of entitled even before they go to law school (look at this board).

Bingo, and they think just by going to law school they should be entitled to big money. WTF ever happened to making money becuase you were better at what you did than everyone else? Now people think they deserve it, not becuase they are actauly good lawyers, but just becuase of the name on thier diploma.

You should read the "2L might be as important as 1L" thread I started. The attitudes in there are amusing.

Sorry to hear about your exile from Phoenix because of ASU's stupidity. Honestly, if I was faced with a choice between attending Denver or going to Phoenix Law at night, I'd still go to Denver. Tis a shame, because ASU is like T65.

The Stony Brook-Touro marriage was proposed, but Touro strongly batted down the idea ... though that move makes an enormous amnount of sense.

I understand that Phoenix Law's hook is the part-time and evening programs, but Tucson and Phoenix are pretty symbiotic (I lived in PHX for two years). To me, U of A and ASU can be grouped in the same market. Perhaps this is an indictment of ASU -- they really should have part-time and night options there. To open a school primarily to serve those populations (which, in reading Phoenix Law's site promo copy, definitely seems to be THE major selling point of the place) strikes me as flimsy and unnecessary. But hey, maybe you're right -- the metro area is pretty damn large now.

To respond to a couple of things:

Debt is debt is debt is debt!!! Everyone's worried about this and has to deal with it. It's not fun. Doesn't matter where you attend school. Those of us paying for the whole thing on loans are in the same boat on the ground floor. Emphasis on ground floor. So, yes, -$150K at Harvard is the same thing as -$150K at Pace is the same thing as $-150K at Cooley. And for two years or so, life is going to be tight for everyone, even if some of us are fortunate to get the platinum positions (not me, mind, you, but you know what I'[m saying ...)

If it really is true that any Harvard student can get any job they want -- and I still don't believe that -- what does that say about the employers? These folks have to be idiots to hire anybody who's proven to be mediocre or not as good statistically as peers ... this must be what's driving the BigLaw attrition stupidity. A hack is a hack no matter where he or she attends school ...

And all Harvard hands on deck -- we need to be fair to you. I've opened up a can of worms here by making the initial debt risk/reward statement, and at this point it would be instructional to know from top HLS students if the dregs of your class are truly competing for the same jobs you are.  Because if that's the case, I sympathize and find that outrageous.

And the embassador's kid thing was hyperbole and exaggeration. Allow a middle-classer like me to have some fun here ... :-)