<p>Informative,</p>
<p>Yes, that’s true if you want to do patent law. But not everyone does, and if you don’t it would be disadvantageous to take that hit to your GPA.</p>
<p>^This is true, but it is not accurate to say that students thinking of going to law school should only major in liberal arts majors. The point was just that employers out of law school will be looking for IP attorneys with hard science backgrounds, and the market is much better for IP attorneys right now.</p>
<p>I wonder if Martindale-Hubbell is searchable by undergraduate college, those results might be interesting.</p>
<p>So Hanna, you’re saying that all things being equal, an applicant in San Francisco with a Yale JD will always start with an advantage over a guy or gal from UC Hasings Law?</p>
<p>Hmmm. I’m sure corporate culture can vary from region to region, but in my experience with law firms, particularly with one that was one of the largest commercial law outfits on the west coast, grads from U of Washington, UC Berkeley, UC Hastings, Stanford were recruited with equal fevor as an Ivy Leager. As I recall, the hotshot senior partner was a Harvard man (and a local product), but that was about it as regards Ivy League law schools. We did have a Michigan Law alumnus, but most of the attorneys were from the better known universities in the west.</p>
<p>I guess Hanna’s point would be : yes, there is geographic bias in recruiting, because employers want to go where they will have a high yield of interested and qualified recruits, who are geographically rooted hence more likely to be retained. And relatively fewer people from the opposite end of the country will be equally interested and rooted. So many firms won’t bother recruiting heavily out of region.</p>
<p>But that does not necessarily mean that if they got a resume from a California kid who was graduating from Yale law school that he would not be given appropriate consideration.</p>
<p>Right?</p>
<p>“all things being equal, an applicant in San Francisco with a Yale JD will always start with an advantage over a guy or gal from UC Hasings Law?”</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>You’re classing Stanford and Hastings together as regional CA law schools? That seems off to me. The “Ivy” designation applies only to undergrads, and it has no meaning in the law school context. No one thinks that Cornell outranks Chicago/NYU because it’s an Ivy. Stanford belongs with Yale, part of the trinity at the top of the national law school totem pole, not with Hastings.</p>
<p>Sure, SOME people from UW and Hastings are recruited with fervor equal to the Yalies, because all things aren’t equal for those candidates. The UW/Hastings students who get the red carpet have better grades, journals, and/or extras. Assuming that two candidates really are equal – both at the middle of the class, both not on law review, both Berkeley undergrads, both the same race and gender, both have similar work experience and both grew up in that market --they are not going to be recruited with equal fervor. To make the difference more stark, a Yalie from the bottom 10% of his class (the school doesn’t rank, but firms can figure it out) has an actual shot at Perkins, ■■■■, etc. UW/Hastings kids from the bottom 10% are wasting paper even sending those firms a resume.</p>
<p>I’ve experienced these patterns as an applicant, from the firm recruiting side, and as a law school career counselor.</p>
<p>Hanna, I think your substantive point is, recruiters will go deeper in the class of prospects at an Ivy League law school (and others like Chicago, Stanford, Michigan, Northwestern etc.) to get recruits than at other institutions such as UC Hastings, UC Los Angeles, UWashington, UWisconsin, UMinnesota or UTexas Austin. I agree that it’s fairly well established that the most well respected and most lucrative commercial law firms in any given metropolitan market won’t venture too far beyond the top 10% of the class at a non-Ivy when handing out job offers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just don’t think you can make that blanket statement. This varies tremendously by region, depending on the needs of legal employers on the demand side and the supply of fresh talent coming out of regional law schools. Minneapolis/St. Paul is something like the 15th largest legal market nationally, with major local firms that do business nationally and many regional branches of national firms. The University of Minnesota totally dominates that market, and friends on the faculty there tell me the top firms will pretty reliably hire the top 30% or so of the class. My impression is it’s similar at the University of Texas, the dominant law school in a state with a number of very large and growing legal markets. Only a smattering of Yale and Harvard grads end up in these places. Consequently legal employers there are heavily dependent on home-grown talent.</p>
<p>Now if you’re saying a student at a top 15 or top 20 law school like Minnesota or Texas needs to be in the top 10% of their class to have a shot at a job with a top-tier firm OUTSIDE their home region, that might be closer to the mark. But within their home regions, these schools are king of the hill.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t think you can lump a school like UC Hastings (#42 nationally in US News and generally regarded as the 4th-best public law school in California, 6th-best in the state if you include public and private) with the likes of Texas (#15 nationally and a clear #1 in a state with 24 million people, whose nearest in-state competitors are about 45 places back in the rankings) or Minnesota (usually around #20 nationally, smaller state but with a legal market that serves the entire Upper Midwest as far west as Montana, nearest local competitor about 80 places back in the rankings). Just a whole different kettle of fish.</p>
<p>BC, maybe setting my estimate at “the top 10%” was too restrictive. You essentially restated my original opinion that best graduates from the local schools (and that’s what I meant by “regional law schools:” their location) aren’t obliterated by competition from the job-seeking alumni of national elite law schools. But Hanna’s point is also valid. A middle of the pack Yale et al alumnus may get more attention than a similarly placed JD from the region’s dominant school and other fine but small reputation law schools.</p>
<p>Incidentally, what’s with all the pooh-poohing about UC Hastings? If it is truly the 4th best public law school in California, some folks would say that’s “high cotton.” I understand that the brand new UC Davis Law has been blessed with great faculty and facilities, but I wouldn’t say that UC Hastings is an inferior school. The Hastings alumni I know are successful lawyers at commercial and insurance defense firms with excellent reputations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s what he meant when he said that patent lawyers are an exception. Otherwise a student should major in whatever will give her the highest GPA/LSAT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t mean to “pooh-pooh” Hastings. I happen to think it’s a pretty good law school, just not at the same level as a Texas or a Minnesota, and not nearly in the dominant position in its market as they are in theirs. </p>
<p>I don’t know whether Hastings is the fourth-best public law school in California, or now fifth. In addition to Berkeley (#7 nationally in the latest US News ranking) and UCLA (#15), Hastings (#42) is well behind UC Davis (#28). But if I’m not mistaken, US News hasn’t yet included the brand new shiny UC Irvine law school in its rankings, and from what I hear a lot of people think Irvine has gotten out of the gate with a better faculty and is attracting better students. I’d also point out that, if the US News rankings are to be believed, there are about 15 public law law schools between #15 UCLA and #42 Hastings, including #15 Texas, #21 Illinois, #22 Minnesota, #26 Iowa, #27 Indiana, #28 William & Mary, #28 UC Davis, #28 Georgia, #28 UNC-Chapel Hill, #28 Wisconsin, #34 Ohio State, #34 U Washington, #38 Arizona State, #38 Alabama, and #38 Colorado—along with 3 other public law schools that tie with Hastings for the #42 spot (George Mason, Arizona, Utah). I would say these are all very good to excellent law schools, but it’s no knock on Hastings to say that schools ranking #42 or thereabouts are just not on the same plane as a Texas or a Minnesota which are perennially in the top 15-20 or so.</p>