Is a six figure salary from a third tier law school possible?

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>

</p>

<p>USNews gets the employment data from the schools, and salary doesn’t factor into the rankings at all. I don’t see why you would disregard different data collected from different sources just because the schools aren’t being completely honest. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Attending a school that is likely to leave you with six-figure debt but unlikely to help you get a six-figure salary is a risky proposition. There’s really no way around that. When people want something badly, whether it’s to be a lawyer or own a house, they often make decisions that are not financially sound. They want to believe that things will work out, that they’ll end up in the top of their class and on law review, that they’ll be able to make their mortgage payments, that they’ll end up fabulously wealthy and successful. I don’t see any reason to encourage them to be mindlessly optimistic about a decision that could have a long-term negative impact on them.</p>

22

<p>“Wildflower, I see definitely see how someone like you would immediately think …”</p>

<p>Sweetie, you cannot “see definitely see” how someone like me would “immediately think”… because you a) cannot physically see me, b) cannot see my thoughts (or read them for that matter), c) do not know me, and perhaps most importantly d) you seem to fail to capture the meaning of my previous post. Please, leave the ad-hominem attacks for other strangers (ideally at a different forum…). What happened to common sense?</p>

<p>“…that Palin and common sense go together.”</p>

<p>However, if you take the time to slow down and breath, and think, and not let whatever stimulants you might be on cloud your judgment, you’ll realize that my post meant exactly the opposite of “Palin and common sense” going together. Being intended as a joke, albeit factual–i.e. an amusing reflection about my mistaken conclusion after a cursory glance at your post–, what I meant to say was that given the tone of your posts (which leaves a lot to be desired) the common sense you seemed to espouse would be similar to the non-sense that woman espoused during her campaign. So, 1) my post was primarily self-deprecating and 2) my hope was to urge you to tone it down and stop arguing nonsensically. </p>

<p>“Long live Palin’s common sense?”</p>

<p>But one more time, given the tone of your posts, one would have reason to think that’s the view you propound… :)</p>

<p>At any rate, from what I can gather is that you seek to imply that a more entrepreneurial-minded law student would be able to 1) make six figure salaries either a) by fighting the odds and landing a “biglaw” job or b) by starting a successful practice of their own (e.g. say, squeezing dollars out of ignorant people as immigration attorneys). Perhaps you made it to biglaw from a second or third tier school? But even then, while a valid point, you would be the exception that proves the norm. Moreover, law students (by nature) tend to be risk-averse people, and therefore erring on the side of caution is bound to be sound advice for them (i.e. don’t go to a lower-ranked school if you want to go into biglaw…)</p>

<p>Additionally, as Sallyawp might confirm (which I think she’s done before), the rare lawyer from a second or third tier that gets hired by a biglaw firm (usually contracts) stands no chance to actually make partner. This is also something to consider. The awareness that one is essentially being hired to do grunt-work might detract many from taking that “opportunity”…unless one is simply after the money (…but there are plenty of better ways to make similar amounts without being a second-class citizen in an organization…)</p>

<p>Hope this helps you calm down; if not, try taking a break from either 1) stimulants or 2) coffee. Or both. :)</p>

23

<p>Shantytown wrote: “Secondly, w-t-f is T-14? Do you even know where this not-so-inncuous number 14 comes from?”</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/601442-can-somebody-please-explain-significance-top-14-a.html#post1061316390[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/601442-can-somebody-please-explain-significance-top-14-a.html#post1061316390&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"Every school in the top 14 has been ranked in the top 10 at least once. (I believe Northwestern was the last of the top 14 to crack it, in 2004). No other LS has ever cracked that top 10. Moroever, this means that depending on the year, some of these schools may or may not be “top 10.”</p>

24

<p>Wildflower, can’t understand the gibberish part but as to…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hahaha…, sorry for the crudeness, but this statement has to be the biggest load of horsesh** and it reeks of idiocracy. Are you actually trying to be ignorant? Is this another one of your attempts at satire? Please tell me so. I’m sorry but I cannot help but laugh when people have no idea what they are talking about. Somehow, this whole thread seems futile since people’s claims are not supported any facts (and saying, “oh my friends said this” or “my friend believes that” is simply juvenile). So let me dispel this stupid claim: there is NO glass ceiling for such grads and it is NOT written anywhere that you have to graduate a certain school to make partner at large law firms (or make six figures for that matter). </p>

<p>Let’s take the largest law firm in my home city of Miami, GreenbergTraurig (which happens to be the 8th largest US firm and the largest firm in the South). Bob Traurig (Miami L’50), who happens to be an acquaintance, is name partner of the firm (Larry Hoffman, Miami L’54, is the 3rd founding partner of the firm). You’ll find numerous other partners from all tiers in this firm. If that’s not good enough for you then let’s take the largest firm in the US, Baker & McKenzie. It’s fairly simple to find information on partners, here are some examples: Taubman, Fredric P. (UMiami), Tarun, Robert W.(DePaul), Kasner, Stewart L. (St. Thomas), May, Thomas R.(Stetson), McNulty, Paul J. (Capital)…and too many to list. If that’s still not enough for you, then let’s look at the largest law firm in the world, Clifford Chance. Among the very few US partners in the firm, here are some “third tier” examples: David Dibari (Albany), David Evans (Maine), Jerry MarLatt (Southwestern), Christopher Roman (Akron)…. </p>

<p>These are certainly just a few examples and all that was needed was to actually take a look. So please avoid the rhetoric and misguided generalizations people and use a little common sense.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is also just brilliant. Seriously! But now, let’s not be so na</p>

25

<p>Maybe I’m wrong but what I’ve heard is that if you have a Master’s or Doctorate in science/engineering field and went to a T3 law school, that’s all you would realistically need since the entire field of patent law makes 6 figures?</p>

26

<p>Having attended three different law schools–two highly ranked & one lower tier–I recommend attending the highest ranked law schools for big firm employment opportunities unless one attends a regionally prominent law school situated in one’s targeted employment region & achieves a top 10% class rank with significant law review, law journal or moot court experience and/or success.
The advice offered by sallyawp, GreyBeard & BlueDevilMike is both valuable & correct, in my experienced opinion.
In the context of the concerns shared in the original post, the OP should not consider attending Whittier, LaVerne or Southwestern , unless there are extenuating circumstances requiring the OP to remain in the Los Angeles area. On the other hand, it is a bit foolish to limit your non-LA choices to only the Top 14 law schools. USNews rankings are quite valuable and offer meaningful ways to look at all ABA accredited law schools. Break the elite law school rankings into three groups–the Top 14, the next 13 ending with Fordham & the next 15–all of which are publicly supported law schools. Any of these top 42 law schools can enable you to get where you want to go regarding salary, but the “requirements” differ depending on law school attended & location desired. Foe example, merely graduating from a Top 14 law school will earn you national employment opportunities with significant salaries, while graduating Fordham Law School in the top 20% of the class willearn one outstanding NYC employment opportuniteis.</p>

27

<p>For my son, a college student, I have broken down the top 42 institutions of the USNews law school rankings into three large groups:</p>

<p>Top Tier: Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, NYU, UCal-Berkeley, Chicago, Penn, Northwestern, Michigan, Virginia, Cornell, Duke & Georgetown. (Top 14).</p>

<p>Elite Law Schools: Vanderbilt, UCLA, Texas, USC, WashUStL, GWU, Boston Univ., Emory, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Wash. & Lee, Boston College & Fordham. (Top #15-#27).</p>

<p>Elite Publics: Illinois, Iowa, College of Wm. & Mary, Washington, Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State, Colorado, Indiana, Wisconsin, George Mason, Arizona, Calif.-Hastings, UNC & Maryland. (Top #28-#42).</p>

<p>Any of these Top 42 law schools offers one outstanding educational & employment opportunities. Additional outstanding law schools include: SMU, American Univ., Utah & several others depending upon one’s needs, goals & qualifications. Although my son’s top choice is Northwestern–a school for which he is unusually well matched, he will also be applying to lesser ranked law schools such as Loyola-Chicago, Pepperdine & Denver due to very specific reasons with the understanding that he should graduate at least in the top 20% of his class with law review or significant moot court experience to enhance his career opportunities both in that locale as well as nationally. But, there are many more law schools–about 110 of the 198 ABA accredited law schools which should not even be considered unless there are extenuating circumstances for one scoring well above 160 on the LSAT–and the reasons go well beyond mere employment considerations. The quality of one’s law school classmates, for example, plays a large part in the overall quality of law school educational opportunities & education received.</p>

28

<p>Woah, I can only imagine what the expectation levels are like at your home. What if your son doesn’t get into any one of the schools on your list? It should always be a consideration for any parent (the worst case scenario). What major is your son and what kind of college does he attend now?</p>

29

<p>Post #28: Your assumptions are way off the mark. I think that you have misinterpreted the info., or I have not communicated effectively, that I shared in my above posts. As I have written, my son is well matched & well qualified for his top choice school. Additionally, there are a few Top 14 schools which are very poor matches for my son. Although I don’t see the relevance, he is triple majoring–which may develop into two majors & a minor–in theatre, Spanish & history, all of which are his choices & his passions.
I can see your misreading of my earlier posts if you thought that the Top 42 law schools were my rankings to be used as a selection system for my son’s law school choices. This is not the case. They represent a breakdown of the top 42 law schools as ranked, in order, by USNews.
For what it is worth, I attended two (one for JD & one LLM-taxation) of the law schools contained in the top law schools listed in my post above, and my son is better qualified than I.
Post #25: Not certain, but I think that you are correct.</p>

30

<p>Not throwing in my two cents RE: the original topic, but I just thought I would mention that for someone who supposedly has years of experience in the legal field, which one would think implies at least a passing familiarity with the rules of English grammar and precise writing, Shantytown certainly likes to write like he’s still in high school. It tends to detract from the (rhetorical) weight of his argument.</p>

31

<p>Wildflower says: “Additionally, as Sallyawp might confirm (which I think she’s done before), the rare lawyer from a second or third tier that gets hired by a biglaw firm (usually contracts) stands no chance to actually make partner. This is also something to consider. The awareness that one is essentially being hired to do grunt-work might detract many from taking that “opportunity”…unless one is simply after the money (…but there are plenty of better ways to make similar amounts without being a second-class citizen in an organization…)”</p>

<p>As one who has spent many years in biglaw, I can attest that this is NOT the case. It’s harder to get in the door from a 2d tier firm, and harder still from 3d tier; i.e., you will need to rank higher in your class and as you get way down the rankings, looking for specific contacts with fellow alums can’t hurt. But once you get in, you are subject to the same standards as anyone else. Yes, there are contract attorneys, but they are hired through different processes. </p>

<p>Remember that even at biglaw, much hiring is regional. I just ran a quick check on my own firm, which has >1000 lawyers and a large LA office. From Loyola Law School, we have six partners, six associates, a Counsel, an Of Counsel – and only one contract attorney. We have partners from Southwestern and Whittier, though here the numbers are clearly smaller. If I were high in my class at one of these two schools, I would put together the best resume and letter that I could, send it to my fellow alum, and then follow up with a call.</p>

<p>I note that sallyawp’s post from early in this thread is consistent with my experience. The odds are longer, no question, and you must adjust your strategy (and level of law school performance) accordingly, but it can be done.</p>

<p>PS - A “contract attorney” is one hired under a non-partnership-track contract, often for a fixed period. A “contracts attorney” is one who specializes in contract law, who may be a partner, of counsel, associate – or even a “contract attorney.”</p>

32

<p>“This statement has to be the biggest load of horsesh** and it reeks of idiocracy… So please avoid the rhetoric and misguided generalizations people and use a little common sense…so let me dispel this stupid claim…”</p>

<p>Shantytown, are you really just an unpleasant person? Or are you just disrespectful online? Your tone is almost unbearable (warning).</p>

<p>Look, in order to “dispel any stupid claims” you might first want to establish credibility. And I am afraid that both your tone and the substance of your posts does not help you. For someone who uses the phrase “common sense” so often, one would think you would actually use it.</p>

<p>“Let’s take the largest law firm in my home city of Miami…”</p>

<p>Uh, it may be just me but when I think “biglaw” I think of Wall Street Law, I think of Cravath, Wachtell, Skadden, etc. I don’t think about “Miami”. I’ve had great mojitos in Miami, but the lawyers I’ve worked with on M&A deals came from the Street.</p>

<p>“If that’s still not enough for you, then let’s look at the largest law firm in the world…”</p>

<p>You were right in predicting my objection, clearly Miami is not what most people have in mind when they say BigLaw. Now, you call people stupid for making generalizations…and you do the same (and in a rather annoying tone)? </p>

<p>LooK: first, you have failed to provide salary data for that Miami firm; second, you have failed to ignore the personal connections those “third-tier” partners had, which helped them get where they are; third, using the “largest-firm in the world”, really? since when does size=prestige or even quality? </p>

<p>“Clifford Chance. Among the very few US partners in the firm”</p>

<p>Well, if most people who made partner there are not from the US then your comment is certainly useless. Most people here are trying to position themselves (as Americans) in order to have a successful career in the US. If your point is that graduates from law schools overseas can be just as successful, then point taken–but completely irrelevnt here. Again, for someone who critiques the “generalizations” of others, one would expect that he/she would write with more clarity and precision (and not just say: “stupid…myth…common sense…largest firm in the world…” and expect to have any credibility.</p>

<p>“here are some “third tier” examples: David Dibari (Albany), David Evans (Maine), Jerry MarLatt (Southwestern), Christopher Roman (Akron)….”</p>

<p>Additionally, Shantytown, do you know what the academic records of these people is, respectively? If they graduated #1 in their class, were the editor of law review, etc… it has been stated on this forum that with such academic record one may still land a partner-track position at some “biglaw” firms (in the loosest meaning of the word). But since you probably have no clue what their individual record is, or whether they got their jobs and promotions due to connections or nepotism, once again, your generalizations fail to be of any use. Moreover, considering that not everyone on this forum can expect to be #1 in their class at a third-tier school (when it is a known fact that people actually fail out at those schools, as opposed to, say, Harvard, where you have to work really hard to fail), then encouraging people to go to the best school they can get into (whether T-10, T-14, or the best regional school the get into, eg UF or of Washington) is sound advice–and meet your precious “common sense” criteria.</p>

<p>"These are certainly just a few examples and all that was needed was to actually take a look. "</p>

<p>Again, in case you fail to realize this: no one cares about a handful of examples when there are hundreds of firms out there. Those are, at best, the exceptions which prove the norm.</p>

<p>Lastly, unless you respond (that is, if you feel compelled to) in a civil manner, I shall not waste my time with you any longer.</p>

33

<p>I wouldn’t hold out Greenberg Traurig as an example of typical “biglaw” hiring - except for the big part. </p>

<p>I’m sure there are outliers at most prestigious firms, but when giving advice, it is best to look at the odds. Odds are not good for someone at a regional law school to have a lot of mobility among the large firms - unless that person graduates at the top of the class and is, preferably, a member of the law review. No one is saying that good lawyers and well known lawyers don’t come out of lower ranked schools. Looking at the starting salaries from a regional law school like Hofstra, for example, has to take into account starting salaries generally in that region. About 90% of its grads stay in New York and New Jersey so, of course, starting salaries will reflect that. </p>

<p>If the goal is “biglaw” then you want to do one of two things - you go to T 14 law school or you graduate at the top of the class of one of the others. That doesn’t cover 100% of the people there, but I wouldn’t want to take odds on other paths. </p>

<p>If you want to work at a reputable regional firm - that might also be “big” BTW, then the choices for law school are greater.</p>

34

<p>Umm, perhaps, it’s been overlooked by some what my issue of contention is:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Clearly, this statement is wrong and it simply shows how little you know about the legal field. Your responses have been simply a bunch of wishy washy excuses that are based on dilettante opinion rather supported by any concrete facts. Oh, and apparently Greenberg Traurig, Baker & McKenzie and Clifford Chance not BigLaw enough for you?!?! Any firm I would have chosen you would have said, “oh no, not BigLaw enough for me.” The term is obviously relative. First you say BigLaw as in large contract law and then you cop-out by saying “oh no, I actually meant Wall Street Law” (whatever the heck that means – I’m assuming you mean banking and finance? - FYI big firms don’t specialize in a single area). Well, I’m not going to spell it out for you each time - like you have to spoon feed an infant. Choose your definition of a big law firm and look it up yourself who the partners are and whether your nothing-short-of-foolish opinion still carries any weight. </p>

<p>If your definition of “BigLaw” is Cravath, then you continued to be gravely misguided. When I hear Cravath, I personally don’t think big law, I think of perhaps the single most elitist firm that makes good money and is old but has little show in accomplishments other than that. And, since you trust rankings so very much, you should know Cravath is most often ranked towards the bottom of firm rankings (certainly not the highest paying, not the largest bonuses, not the happiest employees, not the largest size and not the most prestigious – even though it claims it is). But, REGARGLESS, even an elitist firm like Cravath has partners from Rutgers, Syracuse, Missouri and Kentucky. So, again, your ignorant claim is proven to be outright WRONG. Why don’t you simply admit you were wrong and stop accusing me of taking “substances” (whatever that means), giving me “warnings” and fussing that I am unpleasant. When people make misguided claims like you did (and continue to stick by them), I am not going to simply fold my hands in agreement and be excessively friendly just to please you. And what is even more disturbing to me is when people disseminate stupid elitist ideals for no good reason whatsoever and think that unless you join our elitist club, you might as well give up on a successful future. It is this type people that get their children into Yale as legacies without merit. Well, I resist and I won’t stand for propagating talk about fictional glass ceilings. There is a saying, you know, “if you can’t take the heat then get out of the kitchen”.</p>

35

<p>“Well, I’m not going to spell it out for you each time - like you have to spoon feed an infant.”</p>

<p>Then do yourself a favor and stop posting on this forum. As hard as it may be to believe, people come here to learn–not to be insulted by a new user who seems to think he/she has a superior intellect to anyone on an online forum. And if you are not going to do yourself a favor, then, please, do us a favor and tone it down. Please. No one is going to take your lunch for having attended a 2nd tier school, clearly you have done decently enough for yourself.</p>

<p>At least you did not go into teaching, right? :)</p>

36

<p>I posted: “Additionally, as Sallyawp might confirm (which I think she’s done before), the rare lawyer from a second or third tier that gets hired by a biglaw firm (usually contracts) stands no chance to actually make partner.”</p>

<p>Shantytown replied: "Clearly, this statement is wrong… " </p>

<p>It is not. Can you really say that a lawyer hired on a contract (not contract law! See JohnShade’s P.S.) can make partner? I doubt it, but I’d love to see you try. </p>

<p>“First you say BigLaw as in large contract law and then you cop-out by saying “oh no, I actually meant Wall Street Law” (whatever the heck that means – I’m assuming you mean banking and finance? - FYI big firms don’t specialize in a single area).”</p>

<p>I never said BigLaw “as in large contract law”… but yes, when I think of BigLaw, I do think of M&A law…</p>

<p>“Choose your definition of a big law firm and look it up yourself who the partners are and whether your nothing-short-of-foolish opinion still carries any weight.”</p>

<p>What do you gain by insulting a stranger online?? Seriously. Are you that miserable in life that you need to make yourself feel better that way?</p>

37

<p>“If your definition of “BigLaw” is Cravath, then you continued to be gravely misguided. When I hear Cravath, I personally don’t think big law, I think of perhaps the single most elitist firm that makes good money and is old but has little show in accomplishments other than that.”</p>

<p>LOL… hmmm, not quite, I was thinking Wachtell (although admittedly, I have also worked with Baker & McKenzie lawyers). What’s your take on Wachtell? Since Cravath doesn’t cut it…when you “hear” of Wachtell what comes to mind?</p>

<p>Of course, I am biased…I’ve only worked in Investment Banking and Private Equity…and yes, the elitism there is contagious (and rather unpleasant at times). And it is also because of this, that I could only see myself trading (no pun intended) Investment Banking-M&A/Private Equity for “BigLaw” at Wachtell. But that’s just my biased opinion, obviously.</p>

<p>“And, since you trust rankings so very much”</p>

<p>When have I upheld the rankings as “truth” or given them a “holiness” type of status? I simply said they are an indicator that helps give sound advice. Surely you cannot deny that…</p>

<p>“you should know Cravath is most often ranked towards the bottom of firm rankings (certainly not the highest paying, not the largest bonuses, not the happiest employees, not the largest size and not the most prestigious – even though it claims it is).”</p>

<p>You picked Cravath, I didn’t. Use Wachtell as an example (man I feel like a 4 year old, but perhaps your tone is justified and I’ll learn something…)</p>

<p>“But, REGARGLESS, even an elitist firm like Cravath has partners from Rutgers, Syracuse, Missouri and Kentucky. So, again, your ignorant claim is proven to be outright WRONG.”</p>

<p>Uh, how many partners does Cravath have? Over 90… And how many from third-tier school partners? four? (And even that handful usually has an elite degree, be it undergrad, a master’s, an LLM, etc…). I think you made my point. Thank you.</p>

<p>"Why don’t you simply admit you were wrong and stop accusing me of taking “substances” (whatever that means), giving me “warnings” and fussing that I am unpleasant.?</p>

<p>Because I am not wrong. :)</p>

<p>“When people make misguided claims like you did (and continue to stick by them), I am not going to simply fold my hands in agreement and be excessively friendly just to please you.”</p>

<p>You don’t have to–all I ask is that you refrain from being rude or offensive to posters. Have you read the etiquette rules of this forum? You are fairly new it seems, and so you may not have read them. But you are right, I don’t have to “warn you” — I’ll just let the moderators do their work and ban you.</p>

<p>“It is this type people that get their children into Yale as legacies without merit.”</p>

<p>If that helps my son become president, then so be it. :)</p>

<p>“Well, I resist and I won’t stand for propagating talk about fictional glass ceilings.”</p>

<p>And that’s a valid point–which, if you really cared, will likely go much, much farther if you express it appropriately (but that may require people to spell things out, so that others may actually learn something… and teaching thus far does not seem your gift).</p>

<p>Thank you for being slightly more civil this time around. :)</p>

38

<p>I’m the one that stated that Greenberg Traurig does not have the hiring practices of what most consider to be “biglaw.” That is not because the lawyers are not as good and the pay is not as good, but is based on the history of the firm. In the early 90s, it was a tiny Miami firm so the growth has been quite phenomenal. Each office tends to hire more regionally. They also have some profitable practice areas that you don’t necessarily see at many prominent firms - product liability, insurance work, bankruptcy and construction for example. Greenberg is more of an “in the trenches” type of firm - not a bad thing at all and a real plus for many. The diversity of its practice may be serving it well in this economy, but comparing Greenberg to Cravath is comparing apples to oranges. I joined a regional “biglaw” firm when I graduated from law school - not a T14 school but I graduated near the top of the class. I got an offer from a New York “biglaw” firm based almost entirely on a moot court competition that was judged by one of the partners of the firm, but I am wise enough to know that I would have never been considered by that firm otherwise. That doesn’t hurt my feelings. </p>

<p>Shantytown - not every statement by others is an attack. I don’t think anyone meant to assert that there are no partners from lesser ranked schools at prestigious firms. Rankings are what they are - I have fought my battles about them over the years and have won a few. I have convinced “biglaw” firms to hire attorneys that didn’t quite fit their profiles on occasion and I can’t remember a situation when the firm has thought I wasted their time in doing so, but I can only do this with firms that trust my judgment.</p>

39

<p>Wildflower - The PS was actually directed at you, since you seemed to obscure the distinction in the post I quoted. </p>

<p>Wachtell and (to a lesser extent) Cravath are special cases. Skadden is the third firm you gave as an example and they are far more typical of mots “biglaw” firms nowadays. Go to [Attorneys</a> - Skadden, Arps](<a href=“http://www.skadden.com/Index.cfm?contentID=3]Attorneys”>http://www.skadden.com/Index.cfm?contentID=3) and click on the drop down box beside “Law School”. You’ll find a lot more than 14 schools on the list. There are many roads to success – even biglaw success – in this business. Skadden, like my firm and many others, pays well in excess of $100,000 to new associates fresh out of law school. Most of them aren’t remotely worth it, and I’m including plenty of T-14 grads in that generalization. I was sitting with the GC of a Fortune 500 company a few weeks ago who told me in no uncertain terms that he wanted to see no first year (or even second year) associate time on his bills. He’s not just some weirdo either.</p>

40

<p>“Wildflower - The PS was actually directed at you, since you seemed to obscure the distinction in the post I quoted.” </p>

<p>I never meant to imply it wasn’t. At any rate, thanks for both clarifications.</p>

<p>“You’ll find a lot more than 14 schools on the list.” </p>

<p>So you mean T-14 plus regional schools? That’s been said on this forum all along. Or do you mean all the ABA approved schools? There’s a difference.</p>

<p>“Skadden, like my firm and many others, pays well in excess of $100,000 to new associates fresh out of law school. Most of them aren’t remotely worth it, and I’m including plenty of T-14 grads in that generalization.”</p>

<p>I agree; it used to be the same in Investment Banking, hiring **college grads **and paying them in excess of $120,000 when the economy peaked in 2007–some 2nd year analysts were making more than 1Ls and even 2Ls (with the notable exception of Wachtell). It’s not about the “worth” of the applicant (though there are checks in place to filter people, whether they are effective or not that’s a different matter…and we would also need to define what we mean by “worth”…), work (including a fair share of grunt work) just needs to ‘get done’ when the times are good. People at the top schools are simply considered “known-commodities”.</p>