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

[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?

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?

Well, you shouldn't be surprised that I disagree with you.  Given how facetious you've been, I'm not sure if I should even take you seriously, here. The fact of the matter is, not you or anyone else on this planet will ever convince me that the legal profession should remain elitist (and I do think it has made some tremendous strides away from this), nor will you ever be able to justify discrimination of any kind to me.  How dare you? Foolish of you to even try.

As for your ABA-accredited comment, there are plenty of Massachusetts School of Law (a school which has taken the ABA head-on, and doesn't want accreditation for issues of access and affordability to the legal profession) graduates who have wiped the courtroom floor with graduates from ABA-accredited law schools (of all kinds), sometimes with mere procedural arguments.  Access to the legal education apparatus is about more than just an acceptance, an arbitrary  LSAT/GPA range, or some flawed four-tiered ranking system designed by U.S. News and World Report.

As for your hiring question, *tisk tisk*. I don't really understand the point of that question.  If we go with your ABA-accreditation argument, what is the point of having a uniformed code of standards and norms (ABA accreditation process), if not to proceed with the understanding that law school graduates will be equally qualified and competent for the profession?  As far as I'm concerned, an ABA-accredited school is an ABA-accredited school, and through that standard of expectation and uniformity, there should be no question that law school graduates are fundamentally equal and deserve equal pay for equal work.  At this juncture, class rank, academic performance, grades, etc, do become important in distinguishing applicants in the decision-making processes, but by the standard of accreditation, the school you went to should not matter, since all schools are meeting the same standards that legitimate their existence to graduate law students.  It should be noted that I reject any notion of aba-accredited vs. non-aba-accredited (I'm just making a more general point, here).  Moreover, the fact of the matter is, law students learn what they know from their respective faculty.  Students from perceived "lower-ranked" schools are taught by faculty from the very schools you've deemed as being "top" institutions, and vice versa.  You're not necessarily going to be a better lawyer just because you graduated from Yale as oppose to MSU. Good lawyers are going to be good lawyers, no matter which school they attend!

The reality is, many big employers act inconsistently with this elitist notion you have.  Howard University, a Tier 3 school, has just as many, if not more, big law employers recruiting (year after year after year after year) at their school as your perceived "top schools."  In this instance, these graduates are on par with graduates of higher-ranked schools; they are on equal footing; they are being hired over other graduate from "top-tier" schools.  Your argument is just ridiculous.

I've pretty much addressed this already:

I think it's unfortunate that you think anti-discrimination laws are asinine.

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It's just plain willful ignorance to posit such non-sense. Not all lawyers coming out of Yale are good, and not all lawyers coming out of Cooley are incompetent.  The moxie and overall competence of the lawyer varies from individual to individual, it is not institutionally uniformed.  You can study at the law schools of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Duke and still manage to fail the bar, just like you can graduate from Cooley and MSU and pass the bar with flying colors.

You've yet to even define "better" in this elitist thesis of yours.  Have you even an original definition to bear?  And even if you do, are you reasonable enough to recognize its inherent relativism?  No one here is denying the reality of the elitist and discriminatory perceptions governing the legal employment market, but the debate here is about whether those perceptions are valid, right, and fair.  And the answer is clear, no! Those perceptions are neither valid, right, or fair!

I reject your non-sense, and your foolish attempts to defend it.  Of course, you're still entitled to your opinion, no matter how f ucked up it is.

If lawyers coming out of less prestigious school are so bad (as you've clearly implied), to what do you owe their competence and success in the law?

Lets turn to a more neutral source; Forbes.  After all, in this superficial elitist environment you champion, money and success go hand and hand, yes?

Point to your top ivy lawyers in this list: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/132.html

And how many of these lawyers come out of your imagined argument in this list? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/134.html

Any tip top ivy-league lawyers, here? http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/144.html

The former President of the ABA and current Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC is a graduate of MSU's part-time evening program for crying out loud! Plus, he's a man of color! http://www.dickinson-wright.com/atty2.aspx?user_id=ArcherDW

Sure, there are plenty of lawyers who graduated from "top" schools who are successful, no one is denying that, and if we go to Forbes, here is a small non-exhaustive list of them: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/140.html.  But there are just as many (if not more) successful lawyers coming from other schools who are just as successful, if not more.  You need to admit it.

There was a time where similar elitist perceptions like the ones you posit were used to stamp out law schools with part time programs (especially evening programs).  I wonder where Georgetown would be if those perceptions had succeeded?  There was also a time when these arguments tried to keep women and persons of color from having access to the legal education apparatus.  Had there not been "asinine anti-discrimination laws" as you call it, would a successful and competent lawyer like Mr. Dennis Archer be the Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC, or the former president of the ABA?  No.

Again, I reject your argument and your feeble attempt to defend it.  Angry

But I think it is fair to say, that given the selectivity of the "top" schools, and their small exclusive number in all of the law schools in the ABA arena, most lawyers who are successful, never attended these "top" schools.

[Illini Boy]

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?"

Reading comprehension FAIL

[jbakguy]

Why is it that these days any time I log on and see action on a thread, it is a flame war on a point argued to death in previous threads between people with entrenched positions who simply argue around each other’s points without coming to any conclusion. (oh yeah b/c we're law students  )

Are law school elitist? Yes. Deal with it.

Should they be? There is a valid argument that superior performance in HS and on the SAT/ACT, admission to a good UG institution, attaining a High GPA, superior performance on the LSAT, attaining a high LS GPA, Law Review etc. and performing well at a summer clerkship are a series of ever harder hurdles "jumped" by only those with superior talent or a mixture of intelligence, persistence and self discipline. Qualities which do make a "better" lawyer on day one of a professional career (This says nothing of success 10 years into a career.)

Are these hurdles easier to "jump" when you are a white kid from a rich family, or more accurately someone from a family who has the will and resources to set you up for success on that track early in life?  Absolutely. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a discussion much broader then the merits of a particular brand of legal education.

Here’s the point, and if I may be so presumptuous as to drop a little knowledge bomb on you…WHO CARES!!
Law school is about developing the skills necessary to be the best lawyer that YOU (not other guy/gal) can be and landing that FIRST job.

Are top school grads going to be offered higher paying FIRST jobs? Yes, because that is the way the Cravath model works and because top school grads have either earned the presumption that they are better by spending their young adult lives with their nose to the grindstone, or are blessed with scary talent.

Do lower tier grads have a presumption to overcome that they are less capable then the top school grads when looking for their FIRST job? Yes, because it is a fact of the for profit (some say) legal education system that nearly anyone with a pulse can get into law school somewhere.

But all these presumptions go right out the door based on your job performance. Saving your supervisors butt by catching something they missed goes a long way towards overcoming the presumption you are lesser lawyer because you went to a lower tier school.  Turning In a handful of crap memos or missing enough things in a doc review (assuming here as I am not in Biglaw) probably goes a long way towards dulling the shine of that HYS sheepskin on the wall.
The whole elitist argument is as pointless as arguing whether or not is right that the sky up because right or not you’re not walking on the clouds any time soon.

The time and effort spent on this argument is IMHO better spent prepping for 1Hell or OCI.

Also, I apologize for the negative tone as I try to be an exclusively positive poster but JTFC people, get over yourselves.

[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?"

Reading comprehension FAIL

Yet another lousy attempt to project your inferiority complex... so boring...

[vansondon]

Why is it that these days any time I log on and see action on a thread, it is a flame war on a point argued to death in previous threads between people with entrenched positions who simply argue around each other’s points without coming to any conclusion. (oh yeah b/c we're law students  )

Are law school elitist? Yes. Deal with it.

Should they be? There is a valid argument that superior performance in HS and on the SAT/ACT, admission to a good UG institution, attaining a High GPA, superior performance on the LSAT, attaining a high LS GPA, Law Review etc. and performing well at a summer clerkship are a series of ever harder hurdles "jumped" by only those with superior talent or a mixture of intelligence, persistence and self discipline. Qualities which do make a "better" lawyer on day one of a professional career (This says nothing of success 10 years into a career.)

Are these hurdles easier to "jump" when you are a white kid from a rich family, or more accurately someone from a family who has the will and resources to set you up for success on that track early in life?  Absolutely. Whether or not that is right or wrong is a discussion much broader then the merits of a particular brand of legal education.

Here’s the point, and if I may be so presumptuous as to drop a little knowledge bomb on you…WHO CARES!!
Law school is about developing the skills necessary to be the best lawyer that YOU (not other guy/gal) can be and landing that FIRST job.

Are top school grads going to be offered higher paying FIRST jobs? Yes, because that is the way the Cravath model works and because top school grads have either earned the presumption that they are better by spending their young adult lives with their nose to the grindstone, or are blessed with scary talent.

Do lower tier grads have a presumption to overcome that they are less capable then the top school grads when looking for their FIRST job? Yes, because it is a fact of the for profit (some say) legal education system that nearly anyone with a pulse can get into law school somewhere.

But all these presumptions go right out the door based on your job performance. Saving your supervisors butt by catching something they missed goes a long way towards overcoming the presumption you are lesser lawyer because you went to a lower tier school.  Turning In a handful of crap memos or missing enough things in a doc review (assuming here as I am not in Biglaw) probably goes a long way towards dulling the shine of that HYS sheepskin on the wall.
The whole elitist argument is as pointless as arguing whether or not is right that the sky up because right or not you’re not walking on the clouds any time soon.

The time and effort spent on this argument is IMHO better spent prepping for 1Hell or OCI.

Also, I apologize for the negative tone as I try to be an exclusively positive poster but JTFC people, get over yourselves.

Well, given the amount of effort you put into this response, apparently it isn't such a pointless argument after all.  If you think this is all a matter of getting over one's self, you're egregiously incorrect.  You directly inject your paragraphs in an argument which you claim is pointless as if your words can shut it all down and solve it all to an end.  If it's so pointless, then why even engage?  If you're so frustrated (as your negative tone would suggest), then why interject, especially under the pseudo-guise of being an intermediary? 

I think this is an important argument to have because without the rebuttal, this notion of elitism would cast a veil of false reality into the discussions of users who are genuinely looking for honest answers to their dilemmas (although, I don't think a forum like this is the best place to get answers).  Every time a user asks a "should I go to school A or school B" question, there is always some stupid elitist reason given for why he or she should choose one school over another, because if they don't then they'll be unemployed for the rest of their life and will never pass the bar.  That just isn't true! I mean it's just utter ridiculous hyperbole, and I am sick of it. Those pushing these elitist arguments offer anything but real substance; and they are all opponents of accessibility within legal education.  So that's why we're having the debate.

Are there better uses of this time and energy? Perhaps.  Am I going to expel elitism from the legal profession by arguing against it on this site?  Ummm, No.  But, for discussion's sake, I'm not going to concede anything to any elitist argument.

Despite your decrying how pointless this discussion is, I do think you've offered the most balanced response yet.

[hooloovoo]

so what exactly is the alternative to the "elitist" outlook?

[vansondon]

so what exactly is the alternative to the "elitist" outlook?

No disrespect, but if you really have to ask that question (especially at this point in the conversation), you really don't deserve an answer...

[hooloovoo]

it sounds like you don't actually have a viable alternative, and are just complaining because you think the world is unfair.

[vansondon]

it sounds like you don't actually have a viable alternative, and are just complaining because you think the world is unfair.

No, it seems that you just have a reading comprehension problem...  I can't help you with that.  I mean it's a little pathetic if you still don't know what my position is.  And it's even more pathetic at a general level if you have to ask what the alternative is for elitism?

[hooloovoo]

it sounds like you don't actually have a viable alternative, and are just complaining because you think the world is unfair.

It seems that you just have a reading comprehension problem...  I can't help you with that.

no, my reading comprehension is fine.  i'm just telling you how you sound.  it's not helping your position.