Law School

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

+1

Significant difference in likelihood of Biglaw from GMU versus a Top 14 law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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+

Yes, but things are changing and have changed since the 1980s & 1990s. Litigation is a secondary practice at the majority of Biglaw firms. Some firms are reluctant to pay the huge bounty (advanced standing & significant signing bonus) for those with double federal clerkships over concern about their focus on litigation practice versus the more steady & profitable transactional practice areas.

The advice to make law review and to get a federal judicial clerkship is given here in a cavalier fashion as if those are easily attainable goals. They are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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+

Yes, but things are changing and have changed since the 1980s & 1990s. Litigation is a secondary practice at the majority of Biglaw firms. Some firms are reluctant to pay the huge bounty (advanced standing & significant signing bonus) for those with double federal clerkships over concern about their focus on litigation practice versus the more steady & profitable transactional practice areas.

The advice to make law review and to get a federal judicial clerkship is given here in a cavalier fashion as if those are easily attainable goals. They are not.

What? You keep giving poor advice. Cut it out. Why do you keep arguing with people by implying they went to law school in the 80s? And going on about how you think clerkships are only useful for those going into litigation and no law firm is going to ever hire any litigators? You keep going blah blah blah about this and it is just ridiculous. I'm not PP but I went to law school long after the 80s -- long, long after them -- and nothing has changed with regard to the prestige and desirability of federal clerkships. (I think your references to the "1980s & 1990s" is just ageist nastiness anyway -- if you are a lawyer, in a law firm, which I highly doubt, I would love for one of your partners to see what you are spouting on here).

Of course it isn't easy to get onto law review, and it isn't easy to get a fed clerkship either -- that doesn't mean you don't try. No one is suggesting "in a cavalier fashion" that OP's DC try to write-on to law review and apply for clerkships. It sounds like you are bitter or something. Overreacting at the very least and it causing you to give really bad advice in a nasty ageist way. If you are a lawyer you should check yourself before someone doxes you; this is not a good look.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Other kids don't matter to your kid's success. Obviously schools with higher entrance criteria get more high outcomes. For any single kid, that doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

OP. Thanks for all the great inputs and discussion. I learned a lot and will advice accordingly. I assumed GMU Law would be a shoo-in for admissions (along the lines of GMU undergrade) but appears that may not be the case. DC's interest in law is new (about a couple of weeks) and we haven't dug into admit/outcome stats at all. Will do so once DC is sure that's what they want to do. Not sure if they can switch to "3+3" at GMU. Will explore that as well.

[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.

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.

Other kids don't matter to your kid's success. Obviously schools with higher entrance criteria get more high outcomes. For any single kid, that doesn't matter.

Are you daft? It matters a lot. No one goes into GMU knowing they will be at the top of the class. Everyone wants this, few get it. The kids at the top of the GMU class will have a lot of options open to them. Those lower down, not so much.

This is in contrast to a top 10 law school where nearly all grads will have excellent prospects.

So yes for any single student, it matters a great deal.

I graduated from a top 10 law school, worked in biglaw and was on hiring committees, and taught at GMU. But maybe you know better than me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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+

Yes, but things are changing and have changed since the 1980s & 1990s. Litigation is a secondary practice at the majority of Biglaw firms. Some firms are reluctant to pay the huge bounty (advanced standing & significant signing bonus) for those with double federal clerkships over concern about their focus on litigation practice versus the more steady & profitable transactional practice areas.

The advice to make law review and to get a federal judicial clerkship is given here in a cavalier fashion as if those are easily attainable goals. They are not.

What? You keep giving poor advice. Cut it out. Why do you keep arguing with people by implying they went to law school in the 80s? And going on about how you think clerkships are only useful for those going into litigation and no law firm is going to ever hire any litigators? You keep going blah blah blah about this and it is just ridiculous. I'm not PP but I went to law school long after the 80s -- long, long after them -- and nothing has changed with regard to the prestige and desirability of federal clerkships. (I think your references to the "1980s & 1990s" is just ageist nastiness anyway -- if you are a lawyer, in a law firm, which I highly doubt, I would love for one of your partners to see what you are spouting on here).

Of course it isn't easy to get onto law review, and it isn't easy to get a fed clerkship either -- that doesn't mean you don't try. No one is suggesting "in a cavalier fashion" that OP's DC try to write-on to law review and apply for clerkships. It sounds like you are bitter or something. Overreacting at the very least and it causing you to give really bad advice in a nasty ageist way. If you are a lawyer you should check yourself before someone doxes you; this is not a good look.

Some serious anger issues on display in the above post.

Sad that you insist on spreading outdated info.

Suggested that the posters went to law school in the 1980s/1990s because that poster wrote that he/she is now retired.

[Anonymous]

OP: You can research the employment outcomes that each law school files with the ABA.

According to GMU law school's filing with the ABA, 12.1% of the Class of 2023 went to Biglaw--if you define Biglaw as law firms with over 250 lawyers.

For Georgetown University Law school for the class of 2023, the Biglaw percentage is more than 5x greater at 63.35%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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+

Yes, but things are changing and have changed since the 1980s & 1990s. Litigation is a secondary practice at the majority of Biglaw firms. Some firms are reluctant to pay the huge bounty (advanced standing & significant signing bonus) for those with double federal clerkships over concern about their focus on litigation practice versus the more steady & profitable transactional practice areas.

The advice to make law review and to get a federal judicial clerkship is given here in a cavalier fashion as if those are easily attainable goals. They are not.

What? You keep giving poor advice. Cut it out. Why do you keep arguing with people by implying they went to law school in the 80s? And going on about how you think clerkships are only useful for those going into litigation and no law firm is going to ever hire any litigators? You keep going blah blah blah about this and it is just ridiculous. I'm not PP but I went to law school long after the 80s -- long, long after them -- and nothing has changed with regard to the prestige and desirability of federal clerkships. (I think your references to the "1980s & 1990s" is just ageist nastiness anyway -- if you are a lawyer, in a law firm, which I highly doubt, I would love for one of your partners to see what you are spouting on here).

Of course it isn't easy to get onto law review, and it isn't easy to get a fed clerkship either -- that doesn't mean you don't try. No one is suggesting "in a cavalier fashion" that OP's DC try to write-on to law review and apply for clerkships. It sounds like you are bitter or something. Overreacting at the very least and it causing you to give really bad advice in a nasty ageist way. If you are a lawyer you should check yourself before someone doxes you; this is not a good look.

Some serious anger issues on display in the above post.

Sad that you insist on spreading outdated info.

Suggested that the posters went to law school in the 1980s/1990s because that poster wrote that he/she is now retired.

Calling a PP "angry" again. Ad hominem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Other kids don't matter to your kid's success. Obviously schools with higher entrance criteria get more high outcomes. For any single kid, that doesn't matter.

Are you daft? It matters a lot. No one goes into GMU knowing they will be at the top of the class. Everyone wants this, few get it. The kids at the top of the GMU class will have a lot of options open to them. Those lower down, not so much.

This is in contrast to a top 10 law school where nearly all grads will have excellent prospects.

So yes for any single student, it matters a great deal.

I graduated from a top 10 law school, worked in biglaw and was on hiring committees, and taught at GMU. But maybe you know better than me.

I'm thinking a lot of folks here know better than you.

I'm also dubious about your supposed credentials given your tone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Other kids don't matter to your kid's success. Obviously schools with higher entrance criteria get more high outcomes. For any single kid, that doesn't matter.

Are you daft? It matters a lot. No one goes into GMU knowing they will be at the top of the class. Everyone wants this, few get it. The kids at the top of the GMU class will have a lot of options open to them. Those lower down, not so much.

This is in contrast to a top 10 law school where nearly all grads will have excellent prospects.

So yes for any single student, it matters a great deal.

I graduated from a top 10 law school, worked in biglaw and was on hiring committees, and taught at GMU. But maybe you know better than me.

I'm thinking a lot of folks here know better than you.

I'm also dubious about your supposed credentials given your tone.

DP

You should be the one chastised about your tone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And the sky is blue.

I don't think anyone needs this explained to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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+

Yes, but things are changing and have changed since the 1980s & 1990s. Litigation is a secondary practice at the majority of Biglaw firms. Some firms are reluctant to pay the huge bounty (advanced standing & significant signing bonus) for those with double federal clerkships over concern about their focus on litigation practice versus the more steady & profitable transactional practice areas.

The advice to make law review and to get a federal judicial clerkship is given here in a cavalier fashion as if those are easily attainable goals. They are not.

Of course they are not easily obtainable. But that is the road to riches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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+

Yes, but things are changing and have changed since the 1980s & 1990s. Litigation is a secondary practice at the majority of Biglaw firms. Some firms are reluctant to pay the huge bounty (advanced standing & significant signing bonus) for those with double federal clerkships over concern about their focus on litigation practice versus the more steady & profitable transactional practice areas.

The advice to make law review and to get a federal judicial clerkship is given here in a cavalier fashion as if those are easily attainable goals. They are not.

Of course they are not easily obtainable. But that is the road to riches.

Don't tell that to the personal injury lawyers.

Law review membership & clerking for a federal judge are not an assured path to "riches" or wealth.