Law School Discussion

Poll

Which would you go to and explain why

SMU
Baylor
Tulane

SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane

Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2008, 09:48:43 AM »
Baylor is actually very well regarded in the entire state of Texas.  You will not be limited in the DFW market by going to Baylor rather than SMU.  Baylor has an emphasis on practical law versus the almost complete theoretical approach offered at SMU or Tulane.  While keeping that in mind, consider the fact that Waco, TX sucks.  Dallas or New Orleans would be much better for your sanity.  I am a Dallas native and so the SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane debate was a no brainer.  I'll be a 1L at SMU this fall.  Good luck! 

botbot

  • ****
  • 2793
    • View Profile
Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2008, 10:20:53 AM »
I am a Dallas native and so the SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane debate was a no brainer.  I'll be a 1L at SMU this fall.  Good luck! 

I am a Dallas native and so the SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane debate was a no brainer.  After I leave my SA in Dallas, I'll be a 2L at Tulane this fall.  Good Luck!

 :P

just some guy

  • ****
  • 360
  • WARNING: May Contain Troll or Flame-like Substance
    • View Profile
Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2008, 10:37:46 AM »
Baylor should be thrown out of this group.

For fear of sounding like a noob, what's wrong with Baylor?  It's not too far back from Tulane/SMU in the rankings.
If you want to practice litigation in Texas, Baylor is your 2nd choice after UT. (UT trumps all other law schools for Texas hiring) It's just that if you're not sure you want to be a litigator, or practice in a market other than Texas, well, you went to Baylor, you're going to be a litigator in Texas anyway, or your degree loses a lot of its value.

botbot

  • ****
  • 2793
    • View Profile
Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2008, 10:40:29 AM »
Baylor should be thrown out of this group.

For fear of sounding like a noob, what's wrong with Baylor?  It's not too far back from Tulane/SMU in the rankings.
If you want to practice litigation in Texas, Baylor is your 2nd choice after UT. (UT trumps all other law schools for Texas hiring) It's just that if you're not sure you want to be a litigator, or practice in a market other than Texas, well, you went to Baylor, you're going to be a litigator in Texas anyway, or your degree loses a lot of its value.

Now Baylor has a fantastic litigation reputation, but they do not enjoy any hiring bump over SMU or UH in BIGLAW litigation.  It would be a mistake to want to be a corporate litigator and attend Baylor over SMU or UH.

Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2008, 11:02:41 AM »
Baylor should be thrown out of this group.

For fear of sounding like a noob, what's wrong with Baylor?  It's not too far back from Tulane/SMU in the rankings.
If you want to practice litigation in Texas, Baylor is your 2nd choice after UT. (UT trumps all other law schools for Texas hiring) It's just that if you're not sure you want to be a litigator, or practice in a market other than Texas, well, you went to Baylor, you're going to be a litigator in Texas anyway, or your degree loses a lot of its value.

Now Baylor has a fantastic litigation reputation, but they do not enjoy any hiring bump over SMU or UH in BIGLAW litigation.  It would be a mistake to want to be a corporate litigator and attend Baylor over SMU or UH.

I'm not so sure about that...Last year about this time, I had a similar conversation with lawyers from Haynes and Thompson & Knight and they actually had a preference for Baylor grads.  Baylor's bar passage rates is also comforting for many firms. 

just some guy

  • ****
  • 360
  • WARNING: May Contain Troll or Flame-like Substance
    • View Profile
Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2008, 11:06:29 AM »
Baylor should be thrown out of this group.

For fear of sounding like a noob, what's wrong with Baylor?  It's not too far back from Tulane/SMU in the rankings.
If you want to practice litigation in Texas, Baylor is your 2nd choice after UT. (UT trumps all other law schools for Texas hiring) It's just that if you're not sure you want to be a litigator, or practice in a market other than Texas, well, you went to Baylor, you're going to be a litigator in Texas anyway, or your degree loses a lot of its value.

Now Baylor has a fantastic litigation reputation, but they do not enjoy any hiring bump over SMU or UH in BIGLAW litigation.  It would be a mistake to want to be a corporate litigator and attend Baylor over SMU or UH.

I'm not so sure about that...Last year about this time, I had a similar conversation with lawyers from Haynes and Thompson & Knight and they actually had a preference for Baylor grads.  Baylor's bar passage rates is also comforting for many firms. 

The conventional wisdom is that Baylor grads are three years ahead of all other law grads due to Baylor's practice court program. Again, solely for litigation in Texas.

botbot

  • ****
  • 2793
    • View Profile
Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2008, 11:20:48 AM »
Baylor should be thrown out of this group.

For fear of sounding like a noob, what's wrong with Baylor?  It's not too far back from Tulane/SMU in the rankings.
If you want to practice litigation in Texas, Baylor is your 2nd choice after UT. (UT trumps all other law schools for Texas hiring) It's just that if you're not sure you want to be a litigator, or practice in a market other than Texas, well, you went to Baylor, you're going to be a litigator in Texas anyway, or your degree loses a lot of its value.

Now Baylor has a fantastic litigation reputation, but they do not enjoy any hiring bump over SMU or UH in BIGLAW litigation.  It would be a mistake to want to be a corporate litigator and attend Baylor over SMU or UH.

I'm not so sure about that...Last year about this time, I had a similar conversation with lawyers from Haynes and Thompson & Knight and they actually had a preference for Baylor grads.  Baylor's bar passage rates is also comforting for many firms. 

The conventional wisdom is that Baylor grads are three years ahead of all other law grads due to Baylor's practice court program. Again, solely for litigation in Texas.

Lol.  I've spoken with 5 managing partners at V100 firms in Dallas (including TK).  Baylor is at top 10% for all.  SMU is at top third.

That is NOT the conventional wisdom.  That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Baylor has a great practice court system, but NO LAWYER IN THE WORLD would agree that Baylor grads are three years ahead of other grads.

just some guy

  • ****
  • 360
  • WARNING: May Contain Troll or Flame-like Substance
    • View Profile
Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2008, 11:23:31 AM »
Baylor should be thrown out of this group.

For fear of sounding like a noob, what's wrong with Baylor?  It's not too far back from Tulane/SMU in the rankings.
If you want to practice litigation in Texas, Baylor is your 2nd choice after UT. (UT trumps all other law schools for Texas hiring) It's just that if you're not sure you want to be a litigator, or practice in a market other than Texas, well, you went to Baylor, you're going to be a litigator in Texas anyway, or your degree loses a lot of its value.

Now Baylor has a fantastic litigation reputation, but they do not enjoy any hiring bump over SMU or UH in BIGLAW litigation.  It would be a mistake to want to be a corporate litigator and attend Baylor over SMU or UH.

I'm not so sure about that...Last year about this time, I had a similar conversation with lawyers from Haynes and Thompson & Knight and they actually had a preference for Baylor grads.  Baylor's bar passage rates is also comforting for many firms. 

The conventional wisdom is that Baylor grads are three years ahead of all other law grads due to Baylor's practice court program. Again, solely for litigation in Texas.

Lol.  I've spoken with 5 managing partners at V100 firms in Dallas (including TK).  Baylor is at top 10% for all.  SMU is at top third.

That is NOT the conventional wisdom.  That is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  Baylor has a great practice court system, but NO LAWYER IN THE WORLD would agree that Baylor grads are three years ahead of other grads.

I know quite a few hiring partners that would disagree with you. Something tells me I have had a few more conversations about this down at the Belo over the last 10 years or so than you have.

SCK2008

  • ****
  • 1310
    • View Profile
Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2008, 11:38:28 AM »
Tag b/c this is randomly interesting...

botbot

  • ****
  • 2793
    • View Profile
Re: SMU v. Baylor v. Tulane
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2008, 11:41:23 AM »
I know quite a few hiring partners that would disagree with you. Something tells me I have had a few more conversations about this down at the Belo over the last 10 years or so than you have.

Yes probably - I've only been going to bar events for a year, but give me the hiring partners' firms and I'll ask them them the next time I see them in the elevator/lobby/bar.

-- Baylor is a fine school, but placement (even in litigation) lags the other two.  I know a law review/top 15%/reasonable social guy who had to take Amarillo market because he couldn't find anything in Dallas.  (sorry if that outs you)