Does it matter which law school you went to?

Sherry Fowler has a post that examines the limitations that are imposed on graduates of the 'lesser law schools.' She's not alone in asking this question. Alex Wellen's recently published book chronicles his effort to deal with the stigma of having not graduated from a "Tier 1 Law School," even though he did very well in law school at Temple ("Tier 2") and had an engineering degree from Rutgers.

The ranking of law schools into "tiers" was the idea of U.S. News & World Report, which first started this process in 1987. Not surprisingly, these rankings are used by some people to make poor assessments about law schools, and about lawyers. I've met a lot of amazing lawyers who didn't go to top-tier law schools, and I've met even more who went to elite schools and were incapable of making a persuasive argument in court.

The practice of law is more art than science, and there is no algorithm that can be sweepingly applied to the difficult decisions faced by lawyers and judges. We are, after all, just people, and we feel as much as we think. Proper judgment incorporates both feeling and thinking, while poor judgment usually just uses rote assessments that can be applied to situations like butter to bread.

It will be interesting to see what Sherry's outlook is years from now, after she's observed a wider cast of legal characters. Maybe she'll abandon the practice of law like Alex, or maybe she'll write her own book of experiences. In a sense she's already started.

Both her story and Alex's story are worth reading, and their observations about the practice of law should not be something that only young lawyers are interested in.

Comments

[Patrick]

The worst part of the ranking system is that it has five tiers, rather than say "most competitive"/Regional/State. Are the bottoms tier law schools really 5 times worse? Are their students 5 times denser? I doubt it. And being accepted to a very high tier school is a function of college grades + LSAT scores. Ever know any dull grinds with great gpas but who didn't seem "all that clever"?

Just food for thought.

[James]

I have worked with top graduates of "higher ranked" law schools and have been impressed at their inability to find the law. Even if it was written in huge letters across their office walls chances are slim they could figure it out. My experience has been that they are untrainable in the arts of research and that the bottom of the class from their respective law schools was more skilled in the arts of research and argument.

I do have one praise for the tier system. It gives a lot of lawyers inflated egos. Egos which have helped me defeat my estemed colleges of the bar over and over again.

[Terrance]

I'm glad I stumbled across this. I was reading the most recent post in this category, and I decided that it might be a good idea to read the rest of it to. I'm planning to apply to law school in the near future.

I guess I'd fit the definition of a non-traditional law student. It's been more than 10 years since I was an undergrad. Since then I've worked mostly in the non-profit sector. Law would be something of a career change for me, and my main interest at this point is doing somethign in public interest law. I'm honestly not interested in working for a "big firm," as I want to maintain a balanced life that affords me time to enjoy my family—my impression is that "big firm" life can make that difficult to achieve. Fortunately, D.C. is a pretty good town in which to do that. I'm married (in every sense but the legal, since that option is not available to me and my partner, at least in this country), and have a child.

We're planning to raise our kids here in the D.C. metro area, so I'm already committed to staying in the area for the next 20 years or so. Fortunately, there's no shortage of law schools in the D.C. area (though the choice of public university law schools is rather limited), from "Tier 1" all the way down to "No Tier" schools. (The U.D.C. law school didn't complete the U.S. News survey, so they didn't get a ranking.) Given my circumstances, I would probably be well served by a degree from almost any of the law schools in the area. Still, I must admit I've been someone infected by the status snobbery I've already picked up as I research the possibility of law school. (I've read Law School Confidential and Alex Wellen's Barman—and after commenting on it on my blog, and getting a response from Alex, we've struck up a friendly correspondence.) I've already got it in my mind that I'd like to go to the top rated, "Tier 1" school in the area, or at least get accepted there. Still, all things in perspective, I think that wherever I end up studying, I'll be well served by what I learn and the degree I end up with.

[Phil]

In reading these blogs on law, pedigree and snobbery, some things seem to jump out at me. I may be way off on these points, and please correct me if Im wrong. 1) Lawyers from lesser ranked law schools seem to be resentful of their higher ranked counterparts. 2) The general attitude is that top grads of "elite" and "tier 1" law schools are usually inept at the practice of law.

As to the 1st contention, like I said before, I maybe way off, and if I am, I am very receptive to criticism. As to #2, I find this view particularly ridiculous. Of course, we all know that generalizations of this kind are usually false and propelled by other motives.

In any case, if one were to concede to these views; given the harsh realities of law firm views toward pedigree and their general perpetuation of this sort of snobbish regime, why wouldn't an ambitious undergrad strive to get into a higher ranked school? Personally, I think it would be stupid, if given the chance, for a student to pass up such an opportunity.