BigZuck wrote:I don't know, I want to stick with "It depends" here. Legal hiring isn't as easy as "School rank+GPA=percentage chance in X market." Anecdotally I know more people going to D.C. than to Austin. I guess my perception is that D.C. might be a little easier than Austin but from my perspective we're talking about 2 nuts that are both very, very hard. I don't think either outcome is particularly likely for a UT student.
This line of discussion is just ACHING for someone to come along and VIGOROUSLY argue with me.
Also I think one of the keys to choosing a law school is not assuming that you'll get good grades.
What kind of Austin biglaw are we talking here? Lit at an old-school Texas firm? Traditional corporate/M&A? Capital markets? Emerging growth/VC? Tech transactions? IP lit? Patent prosecution? Some are easier to break into than others. Hard IP is probably the easiest to get straight from UT. In emerging growth, it's almost impossible to get hired as an associate out of law school. There are only a few big firms that dominate that market. Almost every associate in my office, whether from UT or T14, is a lateral from somewhere else (DC, NYC, Houston, other East Coast). So if you don't get Austin right out of the gate, it's sometimes possible/easier to come back once you've gotten a start somewhere else.
As I recall, there's not much overlap in those who both (a) actually know what kind of law they want to practice and (b) want both Austin and DC biglaw. People get both, but either way you have to have the right credentials. If you're gunning for both, you should spend more time thinking about what you want to do (beyond just being preftigious) and what is available in each market. It also goes without saying that there are many, many more entry-level biglaw spots in DC than in Austin.