Cooley + Law Review/Moot Court/etc. or MSU with Nothing?

[vansondon]

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"? "

[hooloovoo]

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.

[vansondon]

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.

[Ninja1]

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.

[vansondon]

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?"

[vansondon]

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?

[Miss P]

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

[vansondon]

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.

[vansondon]

I didn't go to UIUC for law school.

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

lol

[Ninja1]

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?