Answer to Cat's Points:
- smaller class and more availability of professors (most profs have some real law firm experience, or are currently still with a firm, esp. IP prof, which is my interest)
Many professors at every school have real law firm experience, do consulting for firms, etc. "Real Firm Experience" is not going to necessarily translate into a better educational experience. Structurally, law school bears hardly any resemblance to the actual practice of law and no matter how experienced your professors are, this is not going to change.
If IP is your area of interest, why would you to a school with only one expert in the area? If you hate him as a professor then what? Do you not just do IP?
Another point is that a smaller school in a smaller area is also distinct disadvantage. Many people get job opportunities while clerking and working for firms their 2L and 3L years while also attending class. They get interviews for jobs by going to events and networking with people. Consequently, the best way to secure a future for yourself is to strategically place yourself where you can get out and meet other lawyers and market yourself. Generally speaking (granted there are exceptions) but most top law schools are located close to urban centers. Even law schools that are not top law schools, but which are close to urban centers, have a distinct advantage over rural schools.
- OCI firms almost anywhere want to see only top 10-25%, easier to be in top of class
At a smaller school it is probably more difficult to be in the top of the class because your are vying for fewer spots. When everyone is trying so hard for an edge over their peers it really comes down to a number of spots as 1 class may mean the difference between Law Review and OCI opportunities or middle of the road and a future as a prosecutor in Brazos County.
- litigation experience is useful even if I decide to go transactional, can't be bullied by using the word "court" across the table, been there done that
Again, the type of litigation experience available at Baylor is available at every school. Through moot court opportunities etc. Second, no matter how rigorous or tailored the educational practice is you will not go into your first negotiations, court room appearances, or even meetings with clients feeling like you have "been there done that" after law school.
- able to hit the ground running straight out of school and probably less hand holding from other associates, ALWAYS a good thing (harder to transisiton from a 20 hour/week 3L year to a 60 hour/week job)
False, though if you are stupid with overconfidence you may believe this. Nobody can learn how to be a competent attorney just by going to law school. It requires extensive effort, mentoring, dedication, as well as prayer that when you mess up you don't mess up so badly that someone sues you for malpractice.
- if you hate a class/prof, only have to be in it 10 weeks as opposed to 15
Lame. You're probably going to hate almost every class at any school. If you're going to law school prepare yourself for 3 years of classes that you will inevitably hate at some point or another.
Reiteration of other Points:
Baylor has lower per-capita representation at larger firms in all of the major Texas cities when compared with the other law schools in its range. Baylor is expensive and in Waco (which is not the largest legal community).
I feel like Baylor's pitch seems convincing to some because they tend to stress litigation and trial advocacy skills. I believe their video even says they are going to turn everyone into a competent trial lawyer. News Flash: Trials are quickly disappearing. Attorney skills encompass much more than just litigation. Other schools have extensive programs geared towards trial advocacy in addition to other necessary attorney skills.
Baylor limits the experiences of its students and as a result limits its students' immediate options upon graduation.