Law School

[Anonymous]

I'm a government attorney. I didn't go to GMU but quite a few of my colleagues did. We don't make firm money but it's flexible, and the hours aren't nuts, and we qualify for PSLF. It's a good job to balance with a family.

There's more to life than BigLaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Although hard to believe, some lawyers who engaged in double federal clerkships (one in federal District Court followed by a clerkship at the appellate level in a federal Circuit Court) are having difficulty finding a desired job as a private sector attorney in Biglaw because litigation is not as profitable as are Biglaw firms' transactional practices.

Lol.

This is utter nonsense; no one with a double fed clerkship is "having difficulty finding a desired job ... in Biglaw." Stop spouting this BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a government attorney. I didn't go to GMU but quite a few of my colleagues did. We don't make firm money but it's flexible, and the hours aren't nuts, and we qualify for PSLF. It's a good job to balance with a family.

There's more to life than BigLaw.

Yes, you are correct in stating that there is more to life than Biglaw. Everything is relative. Of importance is one's student loan debt burden (the higher the amount, thee more attractive Biglaw compensation becomes despite the stressful lifestyle) and the likelihood of employment in a JD required position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't listen to DCUM and this "top law school or bust" stuff -- especially since they don't even really understand what a top law school is. Lots of folks who aren't lawyers playing one on DCUM and giving advice that is just downright incorrect. And some of that is already showing up here.

I went to law school at what I consider to be a pretty great school and people are impressed when they hear it -- it was founded in the 19th century and we had plenty of folks head to BigLaw in NYC and DC and federal clerkships al over, including Circuit Court clerkships. I landed at DOJ in the Honors Program. GMU is ranked ahead of my school (although when I went to ls, it didn't).

Your DD would do well to attend GMU, especially with in state tuition -- I can't tell you how many people struggle financially with their law school loans for years and years. And going to school with the intention of working in BigLaw where you can make enough to pay them off relatively easily isn't a plan -- most aren't able to get those jobs, and some people like me who could decide to go DOJ or public interest instead.

Just tell her that law review is a big deal and she should do everything she can to grade onto it, and if she doesn't (which she probably won't), do the write-on competition. Then she should consider clerking for a judge after graduation, preferable fed (and the DC area has some specialty courts to consider as well if she has certain interests like the Tax Court and the Court of Fed Claims). Appellate if she can get it.

She could do pretty much anything she wants with law review + fed clerkship.

I read the above post while alternating between shaking my head and near outright laughter. Clearly, the above poster is angry and has an ax to grind regarding this matter and is out-of-touch with the realities of the legal market today.

Stating that one could do well if on law review and able to obtain a federal judicial clerkship is not reasonable advice even though mostly accurate. Earning a spot on law review and getting a federal judicial clerkship are not easily accomplished.

Of the 143 law graduates of the GMU law class of 2022, almost 5.6% (8) obtained federal judicial clerkships. This is a solid percentage. Another 6 got clerkships at the state level (usually state appellate courts), and 19 obtained local judicial clerkships-which is a type of bottom-of-the-barrel legal job placement. Understand that the overwhelming majority of law students from a Top 14 law school (other than Yale Law School, U Chicago, and Stanford) cannot get a federal judicial clerkship.

The more reasonable way to assess law school options is to assume that one will graduate ranked at median--in the middle of the class. This is one area where Top 14 law schools excel. The higher ranked a law school is, the deeper into the class Biglaw will go.

As a side note: I assume that the angry poster graduated law school in the 1980s and has not kept up with the realities of the legal marketplace over the last two decades.

Important to understand that federal judicial clerkships at the District Court and Circuit Court level are only important for those aspiring to be litigators (trial attorneys) which is an area not highly valued by most Biglaw firms today. (A couple of Biglaw firms recently announced that summer clerks would not be allowed to experience litigation and that of the summer clerks receiving an offer of post-law school employment who expressed a desire to practice in litigation would have their employment offers rescinded. Litigation is just too expensive for large law firm clients and not as profitable for Biglaw firms as is transactional practice areas.)

Whether or not to attend law school should be assessed on a cost benefit analysis with the assumption that one will graduate at median--in the middle of the class. At most Top 14 law schools it is fine to finish in the top 75% to 80% as Biglaw employers go much deeper into the classes at these schools.

Any difference in statistics and salaries is due to different methods of compiling and reporting data between the ABA and NALP.

I think that this is good advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although hard to believe, some lawyers who engaged in double federal clerkships (one in federal District Court followed by a clerkship at the appellate level in a federal Circuit Court) are having difficulty finding a desired job as a private sector attorney in Biglaw because litigation is not as profitable as are Biglaw firms' transactional practices.

Lol.

This is utter nonsense; no one with a double fed clerkship is "having difficulty finding a desired job ... in Biglaw." Stop spouting this BS.

I wrote the above and I understand your reaction. But, the situation--although uncommon--is real for some. Largely affected by the overall market for attorneys and the desirability of litigation experience for a major law firm.

But, I do agree that it is unlikely for one with federal clerkship experience in the coastal markets as opposed to flyover country placements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless your kid wants to be a law professor, they should go to GMU if it's substantially cheaper. Great school, and every option will be open as long as they do well in law school.

-law prof (not from GMU)

Sorry, but this post is ridiculous.

The realities of becoming a tenured law professor in today's market is that it is a reasonable career goal for graduates of only a very few law schools such as Yale, Chicago, and Stanford--the 3 smallest law schools among the Top 14 law schools.

If one wants a second job as an adjunct professor (very low pay), then expertise in a practice area may suffice.

Can you even read?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless your kid wants to be a law professor, they should go to GMU if it's substantially cheaper. Great school, and every option will be open as long as they do well in law school.

-law prof (not from GMU)

Sorry, but this post is ridiculous.

The realities of becoming a tenured law professor in today's market is that it is a reasonable career goal for graduates of only a very few law schools such as Yale, Chicago, and Stanford--the 3 smallest law schools among the Top 14 law schools.

If one wants a second job as an adjunct professor (very low pay), then expertise in a practice area may suffice.

Can you even read?

Yes. I reread your post and I do understand your sarcastic, demeaning comment. I should have written more to fully address your post.

As I wrote in a couple of posts above, the decision to attend any law school should be done pursuant to a cost-benefit analysis based on the assumption that one will graduate at median in his or her law school class. The cost-benefit analysis is, of course, relative to one's other options regarding law schools as well as gainful employment (loss of income).

[Anonymous]

Wow, these comments are ridiculous. Please take this garbage pack to ATL or wherever y'all post these days.

OP, GMU is an excellent law school with really low tuition for in-state residents. Your DC would be making a smart decision if they attend (unless they'd be bothered by the school's very conservative reputation and approach).

I went to a school ranked lower than GMU 20 years ago but did extremely well, after which I did a federal judicial clerkship, spent more than a decade in big law, now work in a litigation boutique. I've worked alongside GMU grads that entire time, and the school has only gotten better and better.

[Anonymous]

OP: Bottom line is that GMU would be a great choice. Ignore all the noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: Bottom line is that GMU would be a great choice. Ignore all the noise.

But do not ignore all of her options. Her options will be more clear after receiving an LSAT or GRE score.

Whether or not GMU would be a good choice depends upon several factors including her other options, her career goals, tolerance for student loans debt, etc.

The GMU boosters are a bit over the top with their comments. Any decision regarding law school should be made relative to her other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although hard to believe, some lawyers who engaged in double federal clerkships (one in federal District Court followed by a clerkship at the appellate level in a federal Circuit Court) are having difficulty finding a desired job as a private sector attorney in Biglaw because litigation is not as profitable as are Biglaw firms' transactional practices.

Lol.

This is utter nonsense; no one with a double fed clerkship is "having difficulty finding a desired job ... in Biglaw." Stop spouting this BS.

+1. I double. clerked. I made a fortune and now am happily retired. Double clerking is how you get on SCOTUS. and that's how you get the SCOTUS signing bonus of $200k+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is all related to your child's professional ambitions. Law encompasses many types of opportunities, and some require certain academic credentials while others do not.

GMU is not a top-tier law school, the type largely required for students who would like to have federal clerkships, want to work for very large and prestigious law firms, who want to work for the DOJ, or in-house in large companies, or who want to be law professors. It is fine for students who want to aim for employment at smaller firms, in local or state government, or for "law-adjacent" roles such as in law enforcement, where graduation from a top law school is not a prerequisite for consideration.

Of course, even at a mid-level institution, the better the student's academic performance, the more and relatively better professional opportunities will be potentially available upon graduation.

This is key to understand. Law schools normally grade on a curve, which can be more severe at lower-ranking schools. Many lower-ranking schools entice high LSAT/GPA students with scholarships that have a GPA requirement. Thus, even at lower ranking schools, it may not be so easy to finish near the top of your class. Finishing in the middle of the pack or lower at a lower-ranking school may mean that you are never able to find a job as a practicing lawyer - or at least it may take you many years to network into one.

The curve tends to be less severe, or even nonexistent at lower tiered schools.

I hav never heard that before. do you have a cite? If you mean GMU/Scalia, you need to know that it is now no 28 (way ahead of W&Mary law) and the no. 2 law school in the commonwealth.

I don't need a citation -- I've been an attorney, who talks to other attorneys about their law school experience, for over 20 years.

And your reading comprehension is poor -- no I don't "mean GMU/Scalia." I don't consider GMU a lower-tiered school at all given its current rank of 28. Only DCUM fools who know nothing about law school beyond googling "law school tiers" think that. A "lower-tiered school" to me, well today in fact as I deal with a ridiculous alum, is University of Baltimore law school.

You do need a citation for what you claimed because it's a gross generalization and untue in my experience. try again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't listen to DCUM and this "top law school or bust" stuff -- especially since they don't even really understand what a top law school is. Lots of folks who aren't lawyers playing one on DCUM and giving advice that is just downright incorrect. And some of that is already showing up here.

I went to law school at what I consider to be a pretty great school and people are impressed when they hear it -- it was founded in the 19th century and we had plenty of folks head to BigLaw in NYC and DC and federal clerkships al over, including Circuit Court clerkships. I landed at DOJ in the Honors Program. GMU is ranked ahead of my school (although when I went to ls, it didn't).

Your DD would do well to attend GMU, especially with in state tuition -- I can't tell you how many people struggle financially with their law school loans for years and years. And going to school with the intention of working in BigLaw where you can make enough to pay them off relatively easily isn't a plan -- most aren't able to get those jobs, and some people like me who could decide to go DOJ or public interest instead.

Just tell her that law review is a big deal and she should do everything she can to grade onto it, and if she doesn't (which she probably won't), do the write-on competition. Then she should consider clerking for a judge after graduation, preferable fed (and the DC area has some specialty courts to consider as well if she has certain interests like the Tax Court and the Court of Fed Claims). Appellate if she can get it.

She could do pretty much anything she wants with law review + fed clerkship.

I read the above post while alternating between shaking my head and near outright laughter. Clearly, the above poster is angry and has an ax to grind regarding this matter and is out-of-touch with the realities of the legal market today.

Stating that one could do well if on law review and able to obtain a federal judicial clerkship is not reasonable advice even though mostly accurate. Earning a spot on law review and getting a federal judicial clerkship are not easily accomplished.

Of the 143 law graduates of the GMU law class of 2022, almost 5.6% (8) obtained federal judicial clerkships. This is a solid percentage. Another 6 got clerkships at the state level (usually state appellate courts), and 19 obtained local judicial clerkships-which is a type of bottom-of-the-barrel legal job placement. Understand that the overwhelming majority of law students from a Top 14 law school (other than Yale Law School, U Chicago, and Stanford) cannot get a federal judicial clerkship.

The more reasonable way to assess law school options is to assume that one will graduate ranked at median--in the middle of the class. This is one area where Top 14 law schools excel. The higher ranked a law school is, the deeper into the class Biglaw will go.

As a side note: I assume that the angry poster graduated law school in the 1980s and has not kept up with the realities of the legal marketplace over the last two decades.

Important to understand that federal judicial clerkships at the District Court and Circuit Court level are only important for those aspiring to be litigators (trial attorneys) which is an area not highly valued by most Biglaw firms today. (A couple of Biglaw firms recently announced that summer clerks would not be allowed to experience litigation and that of the summer clerks receiving an offer of post-law school employment who expressed a desire to practice in litigation would have their employment offers rescinded. Litigation is just too expensive for large law firm clients and not as profitable for Biglaw firms as is transactional practice areas.)

Whether or not to attend law school should be assessed on a cost benefit analysis with the assumption that one will graduate at median--in the middle of the class. At most Top 14 law schools it is fine to finish in the top 75% to 80% as Biglaw employers go much deeper into the classes at these schools.

Any difference in statistics and salaries is due to different methods of compiling and reporting data between the ABA and NALP.

NP. I don't think the PP was at all angry. Their comments were spot on. And, yes, OP's kid should try to do law review and clerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Continuing:

If your daughter is a resident of Virginia, typically the University of Virginia School of Law would be a much better option in terms of career outcomes than would earning a law degree from GMU Scalia. Much closer call, however, if offered a full tuition merit scholarship from GMU versus full pay at the U Virginia law school, but most would still select U Virginia law over the full tuition scholarship at GMU. Accordingly, GMU Scalia protects itself by only offering full tuition scholarships to highly qualified ED (binding early decision) applicants.

Side note: Among all 196 ABA (American Bar Association) accredited law schools, the University of Georgia (US News rank #20) is considered to be the best value for those who qualify for resident tuition rates.

UVA law doesn’t have in state tuition anymore though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is all related to your child's professional ambitions. Law encompasses many types of opportunities, and some require certain academic credentials while others do not.

GMU is not a top-tier law school, the type largely required for students who would like to have federal clerkships, want to work for very large and prestigious law firms, who want to work for the DOJ, or in-house in large companies, or who want to be law professors. It is fine for students who want to aim for employment at smaller firms, in local or state government, or for "law-adjacent" roles such as in law enforcement, where graduation from a top law school is not a prerequisite for consideration.

Of course, even at a mid-level institution, the better the student's academic performance, the more and relatively better professional opportunities will be potentially available upon graduation.

I would agree with this. The GMU Law grads are not going to the large prestigious DC firms or the sought-after fed govt jobs. They are working at the local Virginia firms. It is going to be a lot more important to do well in law school at GMU as opposed to a higher ranked school. I taught at GMU for a little bit. The top students were quite good, but then there was a big drop-off. The bottom of the class were not impressive.

Utterly false. Last year 53 went to law firms, several to ovre 500+ lawyrs. over 30 went on to clerk

I stand by my point. Big difference between “several” to big law at GMU vs majority of the class at a top 10. Big difference between state and federal clerkships.

Of course a few from GMU can attain this but just the very top of the class. At the top law schools, nearly all who want it can.