<p>My friend ( a successful lawyer) recently told my daughter that in his experience, not only is the “name” of the u/g school not that important, but the name of the law school is not that important either. Unless you aspire to a position of great power or prestige you can have a successful law career from what some may consider a “lesser” school.
Just another opinion - I imagine that among lawyers there will be disagreement on this topic as much as any where else.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>I think the elite schools’ selection rigor is such that from then on out the grad schools and employers feel the undergrad adcom has done their homework for them. Fair or not, it is often true.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier: Yes, they gave specific reasons that ran the whole gamut and included: superior academic guidance and preparation for law school, a law school admissions bias that favors the Ivies, the greater sophistication of social interaction among Ivy grads, increased job opportunities and earning power upon graduation (especially if the student needs to work a year or two before law school to pay off undergrad debt), etc. Despite the advice of many CCers who insist that if you attend grad school no one will care where you did your undergraduate work, they felt this was not completely true in the legal world. One gentlemen who had had the choice of an elite school but instead attended an LAC which gave him a full ride, referred to the fact that his undergrad school degree has been and continues to be a millstone around his neck. The topic comes up in negative fashion in every job interview. I guess this is in part because the choice seems out of sync with his otherwise stellar resume that included an excellent law school. In other words, what he accomplished after college could not fully compensate for a so-so undergrad degree. Perhaps I’ll post some excerpts of his and other lawyers comments when I have the time.</p>
<p>Lots of opinions here - interesting thread to keep up with. Thanks to all for sharing their points of view.</p>
<p>My special thanks to pyewacket’s last post - which I like because I tend to agree with it. ;)</p>
<p>Which is not to say that if my daughter were to be accepted by a good LAC of her desires/needs, etc., AND the finances worked out that I wouldn’t be just thrilled to send her. However, there are so many happy, successful, productive, creative, contributing members of society who didn’t go to these special colleges that it bears remembering. </p>
<p>Different strokes, for different folks.</p>
<p>PA Mom,
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. There are a tremendous number of successful attorneys who didn’t go to top 20 schools, and there are also certain situations when it may not matter so much whether you went to the regional law school or a college that doesn’t appear on top 20 lists. The situation that immediately comes to mind is attending a smaller regional school (college or law school) near the place where you want to spend your career. I know there are many other examples.</p>
<p>The fact remains, though, that law firms in every large city in this country (and many of the suburbs of those cities) care where you went to college and law school. To get jobs in certain areas of law, having the right schools on your resume matters. You don’t need to aspire to a position of great power or prestige for this to be true. In fact, some of the most difficult and competitive positions to obtain are attorney jobs with public interest groups. I certainly wield little power or prestige in the grand scheme of things, and I’ve faced these facts throughout my career. Also, don’t forget that sometimes life brings you to places that you never dreamed you would be, whether geographically, family-wise or career-wise. Having those top schools on your resume may offer you opportunities in the law (or outside of the law) to better make your way whereever you land.<br>
Sally</p>
<p>SBMom:</p>
<p>I have suspected this, but never really saw anyone openly saying it. Also there seems another obvious lifetime advantage of attending elites. If you look at Cautious list of B school admittances, you see Wharton takes more students from Upenn than from anywhere else. Likely Harvard B takes more from Harvards undergrad and that the pattern is the same all around for all pro schools.</p>
<p>But this does not concern me terribly, though it means elites are best if you are trying for top pro schools.</p>
<p>Based on everything I have read, close faculty involvement is critical for the fullest development of students, and it cannot be substituted primarily with a community of stellar kids. You need both. If, as NSM has said, [m]any of the Ivies and similar colleges aren’t known for their excellence of teaching., I wonder if the top schools that lack excellence in teaching are truly delivering education as well as they should, pound for pound. Stacked next to schools that have fantastic teachers, perhaps they are in fact equal or even less.</p>
<p>Do the elite schools really offer the very best environment for shaping fairly raw students into topmost thinkers? Conventional wisdom tells us they are, and I believe it. But I sure would like something more concrete than this.</p>
<p><<in fact,=“” some=“” of=“” the=“” most=“” difficult=“” and=“” competitive=“” positions=“” to=“” obtain=“” are=“” attorney=“” jobs=“” with=“” public=“” interest=“” groups.=“”>></in></p>
<p>Through a family connection, I happen to know a NYPIRG attorney who went to Harvard Law School --but was an undergrad at Brooklyn College (CUNY).</p>
<p>Don’t you think it really comes down to the individual “elite” school and the individual student? There are really only generalizations until we get into case histories. </p>
<p>I do absolutely believe what you said about close faculty involvement being critical for the fullest development of students and that it can’t be substituted with a community of stellar students.</p>
<p>GFG:</p>
<p>Well it seems you are confirming what probably most of us feel in our guts. There is kind of an old boys network in certain areas of the professional world in the sense that if you have gone to certain schools, you have an easier time getting your foot in the door. That alone may be worth the suffering it takes to get into the elite schools. I would love to think you can go anywhere, even to the local cc and have an equal shot at the best material things in life (that would surely bode well me and for people like me), but I have always known deep down that that is just not true.</p>
<p>“Don’t you think it really comes down to the individual “elite” school and the individual student? There are really only generalizations until we get into case histories.” </p>
<p>Yes, of course Blumini. However, one lawyer put it to me this way: "Obviously, my choice to save money is something I would go back and change if I could. I believe there were certain places in my education and career where I got slightly “off-track” and it later cost me dearly. I suppose there are others that may have gone to lower-ranked schools and everything has turned-out just fine – each individual choice is likely very different. The mere possibility of everything working out O.K. would not change my final conclusion on the issue, however. In hindsight, I see higher-education not only as a series of logical choices and a set of academic exercises that range in quality from high (ivy league) to average (TCNJ) to low (on-line college degrees), but also as a series of decisions and knowledge/experiential acquisitions that are aimed at minimizing and managing risks for one’s own future career. I believe that higher-ranked schools not only have more up-side potential (as far as the quality of their educational offerings), they also have less down-side potential (in that they help students to better manage educational and career risks). The “bottom line” for me is two-fold: 1) attending a lower-ranked school involves tolerating and managing many more educational and career risks than one is likely to encounter in a more highly-ranked school, and 2) most young people do not have the experience or mental ability (no matter how intelligent they may otherwise be) to assess and manage risks until well after their college years - probably until about age 27 to 30 for most people. (There is scientific evidence to prove this approximate age / time-frame for the development of this type of mental ability regardless of IQ.</p>
<p><<through a=“” family=“” connection,=“” i=“” happen=“” to=“” know=“” nypirg=“” attorney=“” who=“” went=“” harvard=“” law=“” school=“” --but=“” was=“” an=“” undergrad=“” at=“” brooklyn=“” college=“” (cuny).=“”>></through></p>
<p>The reality is that it is easier to get into a top law school if you go to a top undergraduate school. </p>
<p>Of course, there are many successful attorneys from top 20 schools who went to colleges that weren’t in the top 20. However, it’s a much tougher road to get into a top 20 law school from a college that is not an elite school. Take for example Harvard Law School. If you look at the list of undergraduate schools of J.D. Students enrolled at Harvard in 2005-2006 (this is the entire student body), only 1 student was from CUNY, while 51 were from Brown, 44 were from Columbia, 40 were from Cornell, 31 were from Dartmouth, 55 were from Duke, 33 were from Georgetown, 232 were from Harvard, 65 were from Princeton, 91 were from Stanford, 53 were from Penn and 126 were from Yale. By way of example, many fine schools didn’t do as well: American University sent 2; Boston college sent 3; Colgate University sent 1; Tufts sent 9,; University of Pittsburg sent 5; Pomona College sent 14. A few state schools did well too: UCal-Berkeley sent 43, UCLA sent 41, UMichigan - Ann Arbor sent 24 and UTexas-Austin sent 31. Other than these few state schools, though, each school sent only a few to HLS. </p>
<p>At least for law, going to an elite college makes a difference, both in getting into a top law school and, in many instances, in your career. </p>
<p>Check out <a href=“http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php[/url]”>http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php</a></p>
<p>TheGFG, thank you for responding to my pretty obvious post. 
I really do understand your point of view and believe it probably holds true in many, if not most, instances… I suppose what I am trying to underscore is that there are so many variables in life that are unknown…and that just because someone attends a top college does not mean that they will absolutely lead successful lives. Granted one person’s definition of what success is may not be the same as others.</p>
<p>As I said, if the financial situation works (and for me that means no substantial debt, and the student feels the top college is the place for her/him - then go for it, by all means. </p>
<p>Then, of course, we could attempt to define “top college” too. :)</p>
<p>The GFG,</p>
<p>I suspect that the lawyers you consulted practice on the East or West Coasts, where Ivy attendance is almost a requirement. If you read some of the Law School thread, you will see that most lawyers view this as a regional question. In other words, if you want to do government work in DC or practice in a big firm on the East or West Coasts, go Ivy. If you want to practice in Atlanta, Emory or a comparable school is excellent. If you plan to work in Texas, consider Rice or UT-Austin. The Midwest? UChicago or Northwestern. And so forth. </p>
<p>I realize that most of the people who comment at CC are in the Northeast and, like all of us, they believe the world is centered where they are. There are stellar legal opportunities in the Northeast but there is actually more to the world than DC, New York, Philadelphia and Boston. For those who choose to live elsewhere, the “rules” for choosing college and law school differ, too.</p>
<p>sallycornell,</p>
<p>No doubt the elite colleges improve your odds, but if you add up all the “no name” schools who sent 1 person each to HLS–that’s a fairly impressive number-- so there is istill a chance for a democratic meritocracy to function.</p>
<p>Good point, DRJ4. And you’re right–all of the lawyers I questioned were from the NE, except for one from CA. My son does want to work in DC eventually, so he felt the pedigree would be important for that reason. Also, he’s a URM and the studies have shown that minorities do tend to get a “bigger bang for their buck” from elite school attendance.</p>
<p>I think the lawyer’s point of view presented by TheGFG is important, because it points out that for some professions, the undergraduate school matters quite a bit, both for the first job and later on, to maximize opportunities for professional success. For many other professions, it doesn’t give as great a boost. </p>
<p>The bright-driven-challenging peers aspect of an elite college is a huge benefit for developing confidence - on arrival, everyone feels like a winner, and they’ve all earned that self-image through their own accomplishments. Then, in daily life, in the classroom, and in their ECs, they quickly come to realize that the expected degree of continued accomplishment is higher still - which pushes the already talented to tackle harder challenges. It is not possible to get the full benefit of this influence in, for instance, a large state university, even if there is a strong honors program, as the pervasiveness of the Peer Effect is diluted within the larger student population.</p>
<p>An example of the Peer Effect - When I attended a rehearsal of my son’s a cappella group a few months ago, they were holding auditions for the lead solo for a new song. Their procedure is that everyone who doesn’t want to audition makes up the initial panel of judges, then they have callbacks, adding judges each time, until consensus is achieved. On this occasion there were eight auditioners, and four rounds of callbacks. The judges evaluated each performance, stating their opinions about suitability of vocal quality to the song, absolute vocal quality, performance characteristics, emotive characteristics, what they wanted to see from each person in the next performance, etc. </p>
<p>Everything went smoothly, judges mostly in agreement, until the last two singers remaining were finished with their last performance. By this time there were eleven judges (some slightly disgruntled about their rejection) and some strong opinions about A versus B - the arguments for and against flew thick and fast for 20 minutes. All of the students were articulate and confident. They got into a lively discussion of the philosophy of selection, about whether or not the performance that evening should be judged only on its own merits, or if it was better to apply considerations about what the final polished performance would be like from A vs. B. One student, attempting a peacemaking approach, made a strong case for egalitarian considerations - A already had a solo on the new CD, so surely B should be given a chance. Another advanced the opinion that while A was a known quantity, B had more potential going forward - this led into a discussion of tenure and future shelf life, and if that should weigh in the decision. While the originating student for the ‘potential position’ had a few adherents, another one finally said “Does ANY of us think we’ve already reached the limit of our potential as a singer?” and that finally reined him in (what could he say - yes?). </p>
<p>The scene reminded me of a Presidential primary debate. They would have gone on for who knows how long, but the musical director finally made them vote, then spent several minutes winding up the remaining objections - allowing expressions of lingering discontent and additional discussion to address concerns, and finally achieving the objective of consensus. </p>
<p>It was amazing to witness - both the passion that they brought to their music - it was EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to each of them that the “right” soloist was chosen - and the facility with which each of them argued their position. An individual lacking confidence, or lacking the skills to run the gauntlet of objections, would not have had any chance to influence this group - they were all very tough-minded! (And I was glad that my son hadn’t auditioned for that solo, because it would have been hard to listen to any criticism of him, doting mom that I am). :)</p>
<p>"An example of the Peer Effect - When I attended a rehearsal of my son’s a cappella group a few months ago, they were holding auditions for the lead solo for a new song. Their procedure is that everyone who doesn’t want to audition makes up the initial panel of judges, then they have callbacks, adding judges each time, until consensus is achieved. On this occasion there were eight auditioners, and four rounds of callbacks. The judges evaluated each performance, stating their opinions about suitability of vocal quality to the song, absolute vocal quality, performance characteristics, emotive characteristics, what they wanted to see from each person in the next performance, etc. </p>
<p>Everything went smoothly, judges mostly in agreement, until the last two singers remaining were finished with their last performance. By this time there were eleven judges (some slightly disgruntled about their rejection) and some strong opinions about A versus B - the arguments for and against flew thick and fast for 20 minutes. All of the students were articulate and confident. They got into a lively discussion of the philosophy of selection, about whether or not the performance that evening should be judged only on its own merits, or if it was better to apply considerations about what the final polished performance would be like from A vs. B. One student, attempting a peacemaking approach, made a strong case for egalitarian considerations - A already had a solo on the new CD, so surely B should be given a chance. Another advanced the opinion that while A was a known quantity, B had more potential going forward - this led into a discussion of tenure and future shelf life, and if that should weigh in the decision. While the originating student for the ‘potential position’ had a few adherents, another one finally said “Does ANY of us think we’ve already reached the limit of our potential as a singer?” and that finally reined him in (what could he say - yes?). </p>
<p>The scene reminded me of a Presidential primary debate. They would have gone on for who knows how long, but the musical director finally made them vote, then spent several minutes winding up the remaining objections - allowing expressions of lingering discontent and additional discussion to address concerns, and finally achieving the objective of consensus. </p>
<p>It was amazing to witness - both the passion that they brought to their music - it was EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to each of them that the “right” soloist was chosen - and the facility with which each of them argued their position. An individual lacking confidence, or lacking the skills to successfully pose and defend an argument, would not have had any chance to influence this group - they were all very tough-minded! (And I was glad that my son hadn’t auditioned for that solo, because it would have been hard to listen to any criticism of him, doting mom that I am)."</p>
<p>I must be living on a different planet. What is going on here is not exclusive to an elite college.</p>
<p>You can watch this crap on Fox twice a week.</p>
<p>pyewacket: You’re right as well. Statistics are generalizations which can be quite useful so long as we apply them carefully and do not view them as guarantees. Individual cases which demonstrate a different result from the norm do not disprove the accuracy of the generalization. Since my husband and I are not well-heeled nor well-connected, nor we in the legal field, the advice we obtained from lawyers was very important to us. What made a lot of sense to us was our friend’s concept of risk management. It’s a risk for our son to borrow that much money for a better college, but in the opinion of the professionals we consulted, it’s a bigger risk to not do so.</p>
<p>I was thinking about concrete advantages I got from my MIT degree:</p>
<p>1) I spent my college years in the company of people who thought like I did, and didn’t feel like a freak for the first time in my life, thereby improving my self-concept,</p>
<p>2) I have an alumni email account and thus have immediate credbility when I send an email to somone I don’t know (it says “<a href=“mailto:blank@alum.mit.edu”>blank@alum.mit.edu</a>”),
and</p>
<p>3) I have gotten teaching job interviews (not jobs, just interviews) solely because principals like the idea of having an MIT grad on staff. (On a related note, one time I subbed for a math teacher: “our teacher went to Princeton, I bet he knows more than you do” a student said. “I doubt it, I went to MIT” was my reply. No trouble with that class!)</p>
<p>Disadvantages to having gone to MIT include the immediate perception that I must be a complete gnurd. Since this is true, it means that people get my number pretty fast. Mostly, this is okay, but sometimes it really isn’t.</p>
<p>The GFG,</p>
<p>I want to commend you for helping your son get input from lawyers and others regarding his education, and I think you are headed in the right direction. Law school and the practice of law was a mystery to me when I started college because I was the first lawyer in my family, and it can be very helpful to get advice from someone who’s “been there, done that”. If you are getting consistent advice from lawyers who are family friends, it’s probably good advice.</p>