Are Law Degrees Almost Useless?

Ghremlin wrote:

Can someone explain the obsession with school prestige in law school? I suspect the top, say, 10% of grads at a lot of schools are compareable in skill to the average grad at a top school

I'll explain: The X/C runners at U of Colorado, Oregon, OkSt, and Stanford are generally better than the ones at most other regular colleges. And no, I don't believe that the top 10% runners at most regular colleges are, as a generality, as good as the "average" runner on the Boulder team.

You can always lob low blow law bombs on your law blog.

zbt wrote:

Ghremlin wrote:

Can someone explain the obsession with school prestige in law school? I suspect the top, say, 10% of grads at a lot of schools are compareable in skill to the average grad at a top school

I'll explain: The X/C runners at U of Colorado, Oregon, OkSt, and Stanford are generally better than the ones at most other regular colleges. And no, I don't believe that the top 10% runners at most regular colleges are, as a generality, as good as the "average" runner on the Boulder team.

I asked about law, not running. This is a terrible analogy.

Most professions don't give a flying F where you went, so long as the program was accredited and you're competent. I'm wondering why law is different.

Ghremlin wrote:

zbt wrote:

I'll explain: The X/C runners at U of Colorado, Oregon, OkSt, and Stanford are generally better than the ones at most other regular colleges. And no, I don't believe that the top 10% runners at most regular colleges are, as a generality, as good as the "average" runner on the Boulder team.

I asked about law, not running. This is a terrible analogy.

Most professions don't give a flying F where you went, so long as the program was accredited and you're competent. I'm wondering why law is different.

Every crap school in the nation (like FSU and Nebraska) has a law school... and there's a clear difference in accomplishments from the kids who go to mediocre schools and those who go to the top 20, L14, whateever.

so that's probably why? Also Business is similar... not as bad, but getting a high paying job out of the gate is dependent on graduating from a top business program like Wharton.

Ghremlin wrote:

zbt wrote:

I'll explain: The X/C runners at U of Colorado, Oregon, OkSt, and Stanford are generally better than the ones at most other regular colleges. And no, I don't believe that the top 10% runners at most regular colleges are, as a generality, as good as the "average" runner on the Boulder team.

I asked about law, not running. This is a terrible analogy.

Most professions don't give a flying F where you went, so long as the program was accredited and you're competent. I'm wondering why law is different.

Whether or not the top 10% at a lower ranked school is equivalent to the average student at a top school is debatable and impossible to measure. Its easier for a firm to just hire from top schools and assume they are getting reasonably competent people rather than try to figure out whether a top 10% grad at a tier 2 school is marginally better than a median grad at a top school. Moreover, hiring someone from Stanford is preferable to a firm than hiring someone from Ohio State because firms can put "Stanford grad" on their website. I don't think other professions do this, but at big law firms, every associate at the firm has a profile online, and that profile says where they went to law school (and undergrad). When a client looks up the name of the first year associate who is billing them for work, they are going to want to see some impressive credentials.

But really, the legal profession is just obsessed with prestige. Rankings matter for everything. US News ranks law schools every year, and the rankings matter. Each law school ranks their students, and the rankings matter (which is why law school itself is so damn competitive). Vault and NALP have various rankings every year that rank major law firms, and the rankings matter. Whether or not all these rankings should matter is up for debate, but they do and I don't see it changing any time soon.

zbt wrote:

Ghremlin wrote:

Can someone explain the obsession with school prestige in law school? I suspect the top, say, 10% of grads at a lot of schools are compareable in skill to the average grad at a top school

I'll explain: The X/C runners at U of Colorado, Oregon, OkSt, and Stanford are generally better than the ones at most other regular colleges. And no, I don't believe that the top 10% runners at most regular colleges are, as a generality, as good as the "average" runner on the Boulder team.

1) >90% of the practice of law is being merely competent. You don't need a genius to draft a contract, litigate a case, or do almost anything that a lawyer does in day-to-day practice.

2) Although intelligence is not a precondition to success, diligence is. A lawyer with average intelligence who goes the extra mile double checking things, reviewing the law, etc. will be much more successful than a carefree genius.

3) The higher-tiered law schools exclusively admit the most diligent people. The sort who frowned when they got an A- or took two different LSAT prep classes to get that extra point.

4) The top grads at lower-ranked schools include both intelligent people who are not as diligent and the crazy-diligent.

5) The crazy-diligent at lower ranked schools are indeed as good as the crazy-diligent at the top schools for most legal activities.

4runner wrote:

1) >90% of the practice of law is being merely competent. You don't need a genius to draft a contract, litigate a case, or do almost anything that a lawyer does in day-to-day practice.

2) Although intelligence is not a precondition to success, diligence is. A lawyer with average intelligence who goes the extra mile double checking things, reviewing the law, etc. will be much more successful than a carefree genius.

3) The higher-tiered law schools exclusively admit the most diligent people. The sort who frowned when they got an A- or took two different LSAT prep classes to get that extra point.

4) The top grads at lower-ranked schools include both intelligent people who are not as diligent and the crazy-diligent.

5) The crazy-diligent at lower ranked schools are indeed as good as the crazy-diligent at the top schools for most legal activities.

I'd agree with most of this. I graduated from a T14 program several years ago and practiced in biglaw for a couple of years (and paid off my roughly $50K in law school debt during that time) before switching to the public sector. People who are capable of absolutely grinding themselves into the ground can do quite well in law school and in practice (particularly in biglaw), regardless of intelligence. And it is possible to get to biglaw from a low ranked school if you're in the top 5% or so of your class (coming from most T14s, it's more like top 50-75%, and from T25 or so its more like 10-25%). And, of course, biglaw pays really well. Aside from the pay, however, I think it's a pretty terrible place to work (but that's just me -- and I'm not really a grinder). But if salary is your primary metric, then biglaw is generally the place to be if you have a law degree, and it is way, way easier to get there from T14 (and really T10) than from a lower ranked school. So I agree with the earlier advice: if you want biglaw, it is not worth it to go to law school unless you're in at a T14, or maybe T20ish with significant $$$ (which probably means you could have gone to a T14). There are, however, a lot of other potential ways to practice law that can be fulfilling and satisfying, if not as lucrative as biglaw (I have enjoyed working for the government a great deal, for instance). And for some, though not all, of these jobs, a T14 law degree isn't going to help you very much at all (AUSA jobs are probably a notable exception). So if something outside of biglaw is your goal, a school that is well-regarded regionally or even locally can make a lot of sense, especially if you can go without taking on much debt. As has been pointed out, individuals with specialized education or training outside of the law may also be exceptions to these general rules (e.g., IP lawyers, regardless of school, with hard science undergrad or especially grad degrees seem to always be in demand). So, law degrees are not "almost useless" if you want to be a lawyer, but I think you need think both realistically and strategically when making the decision to go to law school.

I don't know that the claim about diligence at top schools is true. I went to a school that's a bit of a "feeder" for top law schools, so I know people at Harvard, Colombia, etc., and while they're good students and smart people, none of them are incredibly diligent. They were basically just smart about the classes they took, went to a good undergrad, and did well on the LSAT. The real grinders were the successful pre-meds and finance people.

"Work smart, not hard" as its finest.

Could a JD get you in the door for an athletic director position?

Then why is it so expensive for someone to hire a lawyer?

I basically agree with what people have said thus far ("Think long and hard about law school and have a plan for paying off your debt and finding employment).

I think you have to be very self-critical in the decision. If you will be in the top 10% of your class and will interview well at law firms then I dont think you need to go to a top 20 school.

I have two close friends who went to regional schools, both did federal clerkships straight out of law school and are making 150k 2 years out of law school.

This is not the median. I just wanted to say for some, it is a good choice.

Depends. If you're a resourceful self-starting Doberman it really doesn't matter where you go to law school. If you're a passive butt-kissing nerd, you'll get culled out without making partner no matter what law school you go to.

The practice of law is evolving quickly. If you want to be involved in legal work you might consider getting a degree that would give you access to that field but would make more financial sense. One option for that is to get involved in programming and work in the legal automation field. There are a lot of big players doing legal automation for all sorts of things ranging from cite-checking to document discovery. Some of these companies are really big. But others, are smaller and focuses on doing one task perfectly. For example, BlueLine (https://blueline.blue/) allows lawyers to cite check documents in minutes.

No, the law degrees are not useless. I also know many law school graduates that have become top lawyers. My uncle is one of them. I also will be making my career in this field and from https://testmaxprep.com/lsat/ I have just enrolled for one of the Best LSAT Courses.

law degrees are not useless.

they have proven to be a key stepping stone to a successful career in both politics and comedy.

if you actually want to practice law then thats another thing altogether.

In the near future AI will replace lawyers.

^^^This.

Another example: I did my 1L at a T25ish law school during the height of the recent recession. Started on-campus recruiting there looking for a biglaw job and got only a few interviews (and I had decent, though not great, grades, a real pre-law school career, and had been asked to join the Law Review). Significantly though, that school allowed the firms to pre-screen student resumes (or perhaps more accurately, the firms were able to insist that they be able to pre-screen student resumes). Late in the summer, I was able to transfer to a T10 law school and finish my on-campus recruiting there. This school (like most or all of the T14) did not allow firms to pre-screen student resumes -- each student essentially just got a set number of automatic interviews. A top firm that I had applied to at school A but that hadn't even given me an interview ended up hiring me for a summer position when I interviewed from school B (absolutely nothing else about me had changed). As with most top firms in biglaw, if you are not a total moron, you will get a full-time offer after your 2L summer, which I did. I ended up working at that firm for a few years (with good reviews, etc.) until I paid off my student loans and was able to jump to a public sector job I actually wanted to do (similar to the poster above). But I literally would not have even got through the door from school A -- coming from a T14 school I hadn't even attended yet basically made all the difference.

Also FWIW, totally agree with the poster above that if you're not a total grinder (which I am not) biglaw is a pretty terrible gig (except for the $$). It was a good way point for me and I certainly don't regret doing it for a few years, but you could not pay me enough to go back.

There are two law schools in my city that are basically pay to play schools that cast a very wide net for students. Students graduate with about $150k in debt. Out of 200-300 graduates, maybe a dozen will get to work at big law. Most end up as personal injury/insurance defense lawyers or practice criminal law. I would agree that for the majority of these law grads it was a very bad decision to take on all that debt to grind it out doing car accidents or DUIs. But there are a fair number of these grads who were born to argue. They love being in front of a jury or arguing to a judge. They run out of their house at the crack of dawn and don't want to leave the office at the end of the day. The work is not glamorous, but it will pay the bills well enough.

The other law school is a top 50 school. The grads in the top 10-20% all go to big law. Some in the top 20-30% also get big law jobs if they have relevant prior work experience. Only on the East and West coast is a T14 law degree an absolute prerequisite to big law. In other big legal markets, top 10-20% in your class from a top 50 school will get you an invite to big law. This is primarily because the market crash hit the finance sector in the East the hardest. So, the east coast legal market is full of highly qualified lawyers who lost their jobs in 2008. But in other parts of the country, 2008 did not hit so hard. There was little hiring, but a lot of firms and legal departments were able to ride out the storm and are back to hiring. The lesson here is that legal markets are very localized and national trends do not apply uniformly.

If there is a silver lining to the legal profession it is that the baby boomers are set to retire en masse soon. This will create a lot of opportunities for younger lawyers as law firms and legal departments lose high ranking partners and GCs to retirement.

Automation will eliminate some cannon fodder positions in the legal world like discover document review attorneys and transactional contract drones who rubber stamp the same deals all day. But these positions were generally temp/contract jobs for attorneys who were between jobs. No one stays in these jobs for their entire career.