<p>Consider this information from this morning’s news about Nebraska governor Mike Johanns, just nominated for US Secretary of Agriculture:</p>
<p>**Johanns graduated with a bachelor’s degree from St. Mary’s College in Winona, Minn., in 1971. He earned a law degree from Creighton University in 1974 and was a clerk for Nebraska Supreme Court Judge Hale McCown. He practiced law in the mid-1970s and became a partner in the Lincoln law firm of Nelson, Johanns, Morris, Holdeman & Titus in 1977. </p>
<p>First a Democrat, Johanns was elected to, and served as chairman of, the Lancaster Board of Commissioners in 1982. He left the board in 1987 and became a Republican in 1988. Before becoming mayor of Lincoln, he served on the Lincoln City Council in 1989 as an at-large member. **</p>
<p>In other words, Johanns attended a small local Catholic collge - one you won’t see discussed on these boards - then went to a local law school, was a good enough student to be able to clerk for a state supreme court judge, joined a law firm in Nebraska’s capital city, became a partner, and went into politics at the local level. 22 years later he becomes a national figure.</p>
<p>This is a very typical route to success in both law practice and politics. The initial choice of college did not indicate or fail to indicate ultimate success. The choice of a good local law school was, as has been pointed out on these boards, important for practicing law in that locality (Nebraska). But what was more important was what he did.</p>
<p>Of course, if being elected governor of a state and nominated for a Cabinet post isn’t success in your eyes, or if he didn’t achieve this success soon enough for you, feel free to have a different opinion.</p>
<p>I don’t agree, doc. The specific results aren’t typical but the general ones are. Everyone doesn’t become a governor or a national figure, but many politicians of all levels - local, state, even national - follow this sort of route. How far one gets in politics is totally dependent on factors other than which school one attended. The same is true of becoming a partner in a law firm, especially a good local firm.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you’re trying to provoke me, doc. I’m not interested in the personality question or the specific politician, just pointing out a very basic situation.</p>
<p>As i recall, Dick Cheney came to Washington as a Congressional aide and then (after about 25 years) parlayed that into where he is now. I don’t know how he got to be a Congressional aide, but as far as Wyoming politics is concerned (advancing in state politics might be quite enough for most people) he seems to have done very well.</p>
<p>I am not trying to provoke you (it’s not personal), but I disagree with the you and feel that testimonials for the back door approach to success miss the point and mislead the reader. Yes, some people do great taking any path, but the mathematics suggest that the better the school, the better one is likely to do.
Therefore, I would expand the thread title to: For those who believe that a top-tier law school is the only route to success, it’s not, but it is the surest.</p>
<p>I’m just taking you up on your offer to have a different opinion. ;)</p>
<p>At the risk of being shot at from both sides (LOL), I think that “sucess” if measured by the amount of money one can earn in the legal profession is not as dependent on attending a top tier law school as some would think. I will not name names, but the list of very wealthy and succesful personal injury lawyers in LA come from schools that are not anywhere near the top tier, such as Southwestern and Loyola.</p>
<p>But, who is first in line to the top paying associate jobs in NYC, and other major markets – the top students at the top schools, along with the very top of the heap at the good regional schools.</p>
<p>Doc and Concerneddad: I agree that “success” is relative. I went to a local law school that at the time was more known for the high number of graduates who had gone on to become local judges and politicians than for much else. I doubt very much that any of my class’s graduates became associates at the top law firms in the city. However, for many people that I knew, becoming a muncipal or state judge was a very fine objective, and took a lot of work after law school.</p>
<p>Some graduates of my school became partners at fine law firms - often firms in which they had a hand in founding. Possibly Johanns was of the same type, as he was the second named partner in his firm.</p>
<p>The OP’s point is clearly valid that there are in fact other ways to success. Most politicians went to non-top law schools, because it usually makes more sense to go local. The top trial lawers, in terms of huge awards and settlements, usually went to lower-ranked schools that focused on basic skills. And anyone who’s excellent in thier area of expertise will end up doing well, regardless of law school. </p>
<p>Going to a top school may make things easier, but it doesn’t mean you’re foreclosed from success if you don’t.</p>
<p>This is a quote I made up when I was younger - “The best way to get to the top is to start there.”</p>
<p>I said this in reference to military leaders, when I read that most of them were from West Point. Of course, you can have someone like Colin Powell, who went through an ROTC program, or George Marshall, who went to VMI, but pretty much every other American General you’ve heard of went to West Point. Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Grant, Lee, Jackson, Pershing, Schwarzkopf, Westmoreland. </p>
<p>Same with law school. I have two friends who just graduated from law school. One went to UCLA (top 20 school, especially strong in SoCal), another went to Chapman (local school in Orange County). The guy who went to UCLA got a job immediately and is making $125k a year, while the girl who went to Chapman is working as a law clerk and still looking for a job with a firm, which she probably won’t be able to land until next year at this point. But they’re both equally smart (in fact, the girl had a higher GPA than the guy did) and they both passed the CA bar last month. But because the UCLA grad went to a top-tier school, he is having less trouble finding opportunities.</p>
<p>This is the old sufficient/necessary distinction. </p>
<p>No one disputes that it’s far easier to be successful from a higher-ranked program.</p>
<p>The question is whether it’s also possible to be succesful from other programs. The truth, ultimately, is that it is (though you may have to work harder, etc.). </p>
<p>Given that most people won’t be able to get into a “top” program, this seems a worthwhile point to make.</p>
<p>Bill Gates and Larry Ellison, two of the world’s wealthiest men, never completed college. However, I think the OP’s focus was success in the legal realm.</p>
<p>George W. Bush was rejected at UT’s law school (the only one to which he applied). Some would argue that he managed to find another route to success. (I wouldn’t concede the point without an argument, myself.)</p>
<p>We can define success any any number of ways. Bill Gates is financially successful. Has he succeeded in living an ethical life? That’s a tougher proposition. He’s a great philanthropist, but the corporation he headed was adjudged to have violated anti-trust laws.</p>
<p>And yes, his company sells buggy software that has provided little in the way of innovation the past five years.</p>