Undergrad Reputation in Biglaw hiring Forum

[whereskyle]

I went to an undergrad largely unknown due to a short term of existence and an incredibly small student body. While I will be going to a lower T14, I have noticed in my searches of associates at top firms that many of the associates who went to my T14 have undergrad and grad degrees from prestigious institutions. I am very confident in my ability to explain why my undergrad is the best undergrad for a lawyer. Yet, I am wondering what TLS thinks of the significance of having attended a reputable undergrad for prospective associates at top firms. Is this something I can talk myself through, or will prestige goggles keep me out of top firms?

[brotherdarkness]

.

[jbagelboy]

TLS doesn't really know, and the mantra here is that it won't matter because for admissions, it largely doesn't, and because the issue raises a host of correlation/causation issues. Basically, you're right: most partners and associates at V20 law firms went to prestigious colleges before coming to law school. This could just mean "prestige" driven 18 yr olds self-select into "prestige" at 25. Or it could be these alumni networks continue to play a role in firm hiring, and hiring partners generationally speaking tended to hail from certain backgrounds (I believe this is true). Unless you are deciding where to college it doesn't really make any difference to you practically does it?

I did lol at the most recent panel of top firm transactional partners, all but one of whom went to Princeton UG according to their bios (black sheep at Duke or something).

[LegalReality]

Anecdotal information here: my firm just specifically rejected a candidate who was otherwise qualified based solely on the fact that a person went to a terrible undergrad school. The fact that your school is not well known will not hurt, but if it is truly a terrible undergrad institution reputationwise, it can be held against you.

[Ricky-Bobby]

Anecdotal information here: my firm just specifically rejected a candidate who was otherwise qualified based solely on the fact that a person went to a terrible undergrad school. The fact that your school is not well known will not hurt, but if it is truly a terrible undergrad institution reputationwise, it can be held against you.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If their performance in LS was adequate to be hired, why should undergrad matter? The mistake in selection would have been made by the law school if the undergrad produced a terrible graduate. Obviously they performed satisfactorily against their LS peers if they were otherwise qualified.

-Guy who's butthurt because his undergrad sucks

[El Principe]

Anecdotal information here: my firm just specifically rejected a candidate who was otherwise qualified based solely on the fact that a person went to a terrible undergrad school. The fact that your school is not well known will not hurt, but if it is truly a terrible undergrad institution reputationwise, it can be held against you.

Now this intrigues me. What do you mean by "terrible"? Are we talking about schools that are just generally unranked? Schools that aren't tier 1? Not top 100? 50? Have a reputation for being party school? Public state institutions?

[t-14orbust]

Anecdotal information here: my firm just specifically rejected a candidate who was otherwise qualified based solely on the fact that a person went to a terrible undergrad school. The fact that your school is not well known will not hurt, but if it is truly a terrible undergrad institution reputationwise, it can be held against you.

Now this intrigues me. What do you mean by "terrible"? Are we talking about schools that are just generally unranked? Schools that aren't tier 1? Not top 100? 50? Have a reputation for being party school? Public state institutions?

[jbagelboy]

Anecdotal information here: my firm just specifically rejected a candidate who was otherwise qualified based solely on the fact that a person went to a terrible undergrad school. The fact that your school is not well known will not hurt, but if it is truly a terrible undergrad institution reputationwise, it can be held against you.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If their performance in LS was adequate to be hired, why should undergrad matter? The mistake in selection would have been made by the law school if the undergrad produced a terrible graduate. Obviously they performed satisfactorily against their LS peers if they were otherwise qualified.

-Guy who's butthurt because his undergrad sucks

Isn't necessarily a quality issue. Snotty clients in finance or another uptight field could care (it goes on your firm bio, ect). Could also just be an excuse.

[Balthy]

I went to a TTT undergrad and will also be at a t14 this fall, so this is a scary topic and I'd like to hear more opinions, even anecdotes.

I am very confident in my ability to explain why my undergrad is the best undergrad for a lawyer.

I would really not do this though.

[lakers180]

ya to the poster who said the person got rejected,

what was the school?

what is sufficient for really bad

[FKASunny]

ya to the poster who said the person got rejected,

what was the school?

what is sufficient for really bad

I'm hoping it was a school like U Phoenix or another one of those for-profit diploma mills that shows bad judgment. I feel like someone who went to big state U and did well at a T14 should be given props, but that's probably personal bias.

[whereskyle]

I went to a TTT undergrad and will also be at a t14 this fall, so this is a scary topic and I'd like to hear more opinions, even anecdotes.

I am very confident in my ability to explain why my undergrad is the best undergrad for a lawyer.

I would really not do this though.

It's going to come up, and my response will obviously try to elucidate the program's most positive qualities, which I genuinely feel to be advantageous for lawyers.

[Ricky-Bobby]

Anecdotal information here: my firm just specifically rejected a candidate who was otherwise qualified based solely on the fact that a person went to a terrible undergrad school. The fact that your school is not well known will not hurt, but if it is truly a terrible undergrad institution reputationwise, it can be held against you.

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If their performance in LS was adequate to be hired, why should undergrad matter? The mistake in selection would have been made by the law school if the undergrad produced a terrible graduate. Obviously they performed satisfactorily against their LS peers if they were otherwise qualified.

-Guy who's butthurt because his undergrad sucks

Isn't necessarily a quality issue. Snotty clients in finance or another uptight field could care (it goes on your firm bio, ect). Could also just be an excuse.

Oh, NBD then. I'll just lie. Thanks for the advice!

[lakers180]

.

[abl]

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If their performance in LS was adequate to be hired, why should undergrad matter? The mistake in selection would have been made by the law school if the undergrad produced a terrible graduate. Obviously they performed satisfactorily against their LS peers if they were otherwise qualified.

To give your potentially not-serious question a long-winded and overly serious response:

The answer to why undergrad reputation often does (and should) matter is because legal employers have only limited access to relevant information about the candidates they are considering. Based on this limited information, they have to guess which candidates will make the best lawyers. This amounts to little more than an educated guess. And obviously the best educated guesses are the ones that take into account all of the relevant factors. Looking just at what law school a candidate went to, and how that candidate did in that law school, imposes an unnecessary limit on the information considered. This matters because the omitted information -- quality of undergrad -- is a relevant factor, and is not entirely accounted for by quality of law school and law school performance.

The quality of your law school is based largely on your undergrad GPA and LSAT. Law school performance is based largely on your ability to take law school exams well. These are both somewhat relevant things in evaluating who will be a good lawyer. (But they're far from the only relevant things.) And the quality of your undergraduate education gets factored in somewhat in determining where you go to law school and how you do -- better-educated applicants will likely do better on the LSAT, and then better on law school exams. But there will be some who got crappy undergraduate educations and yet are simply very good at taking exams. Some of these candidates may have done well at good law schools while lacking many of the skills necessary to be a good lawyer. In other words, for some, it may be that their test taking acumen will disguise a lack of writing ability or critical thinking skills (not necessarily a total lack -- but a relative lack).

This problem may be somewhat mitigated by considering the quality of undergrad. Because those who go to good undergrads are more likely to be strong writers and strong critical thinkers than those who go to bad undergrads (because that is much of what you get from a good undergraduate education), it is less likely that a candidate who went to Amherst -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25% is simply a good test taker than a candidate who went to Southeastern Kentucky State -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25%. And writing and critical thinking are not the only skills or knowledge relevant to lawyer performance gained in a good undergraduate education -- just potentially the two most obvious.

Am I arguing that you can't get a good education at Southeastern Kentucky State? Of course not! Nor am I arguing that all graduates of Amherst will have gotten a good education. But I do think that just about everyone here will agree that as a general rule, better schools have better students who receive a better education. A legal employer would really only stand to lose by ignoring this.

So to summarize: writing ability and critical thinking matter. Someone who goes to a good undergrad is more likely to be a good writer + have better critical thinking skills than someone who went to a bad undergrad. Some of this difference will be accounted for by looking at quality of law school and law school performance. But not all. Therefore, it'd be stupid NOT to take this into account in some way. It obviously shouldn't be the most important factor. But it certainly matters.

[FKASunny]

Because those who go to good undergrads are more likely to be strong writers and strong critical thinkers than those who go to bad undergrads (because that is much of what you get from a good undergraduate education), it is less likely that a candidate who went to Amherst -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25% is simply a good test taker than a candidate who went to Southeastern Kentucky State -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25%.

I don't think this argument is nearly as convincing as the "we're buttboys to prestige whores, so we'll prestige whore too" argument.

[Muff]

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If their performance in LS was adequate to be hired, why should undergrad matter? The mistake in selection would have been made by the law school if the undergrad produced a terrible graduate. Obviously they performed satisfactorily against their LS peers if they were otherwise qualified.

To give your potentially not-serious question a long-winded and overly serious response:

The answer why undergrad reputation often does (and should) matter is because legal employers have only limited access to relevant information about the candidates they are considering. Based on this limited information, they have to guess which candidates will make the best lawyers. This amounts to little more than an educated guess. And obviously the best educated guesses are the ones that take into account all of the relevant factors. Looking just at what law school a candidate went to, and how that candidate did in that law school, imposes an unnecessary limit on the information considered. This matters because the omitted information -- quality of undergrad -- is a relevant factor, and is not entirely accounted for by quality of law school and law school performance.

The quality of your law school is based largely on your undergrad GPA and LSAT. Law school performance is based largely on your ability to take law school exams well. These are both somewhat relevant things in evaluating who will be a good lawyer. (But they're far from the only relevant things.) And the quality of your undergraduate education gets factored in somewhat in determining where you go to law school and how you do -- better-educated applicants will likely do better on the LSAT, and then better on law school exams. But there will be some who got crappy undergraduate educations and yet are simply very good at taking exams. Some of these candidates may have done well at good law schools while lacking many of the skills necessary to be a good lawyer. In other words, for some, it may be that their test taking acumen will disguise a lack of writing ability or critical thinking skills (not necessarily a total lack -- but a relative lack).

This problem may be somewhat mitigated by considering the quality of undergrad. Because those who go to good undergrads are more likely to be strong writers and strong critical thinkers than those who go to bad undergrads (because that is much of what you get from a good undergraduate education), it is less likely that a candidate who went to Amherst -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25% is simply a good test taker than a candidate who went to Southeastern Kentucky State -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25%. And writing and critical thinking are not the only skills or knowledge relevant to lawyer performance gained in a good undergraduate education -- just potentially the two most obvious.

Am I arguing that you can't get a good education at Southeastern Kentucky State? Of course not! Nor am I arguing that all graduates of Amherst will have gotten a good education. But I do think that just about everyone here will agree that as a general rule, better schools have better students who receive a better education. A legal employer would really only stand to lose by ignoring this.

So to summarize: writing ability and critical thinking matter. Someone who goes to a good undergrad is more likely to be a good writer + have better critical thinking skills than someone who went to a bad undergrad. Some of this difference will be accounted for by looking at quality of law school and law school performance. But not all. Therefore, it'd be stupid NOT to take this into account in some way. It obviously shouldn't be the most important factor. But it certainly matters.

disagree

[abl]

That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. If their performance in LS was adequate to be hired, why should undergrad matter? The mistake in selection would have been made by the law school if the undergrad produced a terrible graduate. Obviously they performed satisfactorily against their LS peers if they were otherwise qualified.

To give your potentially not-serious question a long-winded and overly serious response:

The answer why undergrad reputation often does (and should) matter is because legal employers have only limited access to relevant information about the candidates they are considering. Based on this limited information, they have to guess which candidates will make the best lawyers. This amounts to little more than an educated guess. And obviously the best educated guesses are the ones that take into account all of the relevant factors. Looking just at what law school a candidate went to, and how that candidate did in that law school, imposes an unnecessary limit on the information considered. This matters because the omitted information -- quality of undergrad -- is a relevant factor, and is not entirely accounted for by quality of law school and law school performance.

The quality of your law school is based largely on your undergrad GPA and LSAT. Law school performance is based largely on your ability to take law school exams well. These are both somewhat relevant things in evaluating who will be a good lawyer. (But they're far from the only relevant things.) And the quality of your undergraduate education gets factored in somewhat in determining where you go to law school and how you do -- better-educated applicants will likely do better on the LSAT, and then better on law school exams. But there will be some who got crappy undergraduate educations and yet are simply very good at taking exams. Some of these candidates may have done well at good law schools while lacking many of the skills necessary to be a good lawyer. In other words, for some, it may be that their test taking acumen will disguise a lack of writing ability or critical thinking skills (not necessarily a total lack -- but a relative lack).

This problem may be somewhat mitigated by considering the quality of undergrad. Because those who go to good undergrads are more likely to be strong writers and strong critical thinkers than those who go to bad undergrads (because that is much of what you get from a good undergraduate education), it is less likely that a candidate who went to Amherst -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25% is simply a good test taker than a candidate who went to Southeastern Kentucky State -> Harvard Law and graduated top 25%. And writing and critical thinking are not the only skills or knowledge relevant to lawyer performance gained in a good undergraduate education -- just potentially the two most obvious.

Am I arguing that you can't get a good education at Southeastern Kentucky State? Of course not! Nor am I arguing that all graduates of Amherst will have gotten a good education. But I do think that just about everyone here will agree that as a general rule, better schools have better students who receive a better education. A legal employer would really only stand to lose by ignoring this.

So to summarize: writing ability and critical thinking matter. Someone who goes to a good undergrad is more likely to be a good writer + have better critical thinking skills than someone who went to a bad undergrad. Some of this difference will be accounted for by looking at quality of law school and law school performance. But not all. Therefore, it'd be stupid NOT to take this into account in some way. It obviously shouldn't be the most important factor. But it certainly matters.

disagree

With what?

[dwil770]

I went to a TTT undergrad and will also be at a t14 this fall, so this is a scary topic and I'd like to hear more opinions, even anecdotes.

I am very confident in my ability to explain why my undergrad is the best undergrad for a lawyer.

I would really not do this though.

It's going to come up, and my response will obviously try to elucidate the program's most positive qualities, which I genuinely feel to be advantageous for lawyers.

If you are so worried about your ug that you started a thread here asking for other opinions, I think you will probably look foolish if, instead of merely arguing that your UG isn't a dingable offense, you go balls out with "well yeah it is unranked but it is actually the BEST UNDERGRAD FOR A LAWYER. Where do you go? Harvard? psh!"

[Muff]

disagree

With what?

all of it.

[whereskyle]

I went to a TTT undergrad and will also be at a t14 this fall, so this is a scary topic and I'd like to hear more opinions, even anecdotes.

I am very confident in my ability to explain why my undergrad is the best undergrad for a lawyer.

I would really not do this though.

It's going to come up, and my response will obviously try to elucidate the program's most positive qualities, which I genuinely feel to be advantageous for lawyers.

If you are so worried about your ug that you started a thread here asking for other opinions, I think you will probably look foolish if, instead of merely arguing that your UG isn't a dingable offense, you go balls out with "well yeah it is unranked but it is actually the BEST UNDERGRAD FOR A LAWYER. Where do you go Harvard? psh!"

The fact that I started a thread doesn't mean I'm SOOO worried. Obviously I'll get flack for saying the "best". I brought it up to distinguish prestige from quality. Thanks for the balls in pants recommendation.

[t-14orbust]

Thanks for the balls in pants recommendation.

Please tell me what this means exactly so I can use it in conversation

[Balthy]

I went to a TTT undergrad and will also be at a t14 this fall, so this is a scary topic and I'd like to hear more opinions, even anecdotes.

I am very confident in my ability to explain why my undergrad is the best undergrad for a lawyer.

I would really not do this though.

It's going to come up, and my response will obviously try to elucidate the program's most positive qualities, which I genuinely feel to be advantageous for lawyers.

If you are so worried about your ug that you started a thread here asking for other opinions, I think you will probably look foolish if, instead of merely arguing that your UG isn't a dingable offense, you go balls out with "well yeah it is unranked but it is actually the BEST UNDERGRAD FOR A LAWYER. Where do you go? Harvard? psh!"

Exactly, OP I would not say it's the "best undergrad for a lawyer." That just sounds like you're either delusional or very bad as BSing. I would just give some personal reason for choosing your undergrad, and follow with how it was still a great school in terms of educational quality and gave you whatever relevant skills you think you should emphasize. I'm a 0L though so this is just my guess.

[jbagelboy]

If you look through abl's post history, it largely consists of commentary along the lines of:

"I went to only top ranked programs, and as a result I think I can justifiably comment on how much better my education is, how much smarter and more interesting my peers have been, how much more open my intellectual and professional opportunities are, and how exponentially richer my life and experiences are as a result, than yours"

Once you place his comments on this board in context, you can begin to understand how he would arrive at such asinine positions.

As a caveat, I attended equally thoroughly blue blooded institutions myself, but I don't find the "superior core analytic skills" argument at all convincing. The reasonable explanations tend to be far more exogenous. What I do think these prestigious names DO provide on your resume is a critical "bar reaching" measure for future employers, which is to say, they can make certain assumptions about you because someone else has already decided you met a certain standard/level of qualifications, so they won't have to. If your CV says "Johns Hopkins" and "Boston Consulting Group," regardless of your actual experiences as a member of those institutions, the future employer sees instantly you've met that bar and can move on. Less time spent proving yourself.

Meeting client delusions/expectations and the above discussion is far more TCR to me than abl's internal skills-driven argument, although admittedly there's probably a hint of truth and hint of exaggeration to each.

[abl]

If you look through abl's post history, it largely consists of commentary along the lines of:

"I went to only top ranked programs, and as a result I think I can justifiably comment on how much better my education is, how much smarter and more interesting my peers have been, how much more open my intellectual and professional opportunities are, and how exponentially richer my life and experiences are as a result, than yours"

Once you place his comments on this board in context, you can begin to understand how he would arrive at such asinine positions.

As a caveat, I attended equally thoroughly blue blooded institutions myself, but I don't find the "superior core analytic skills" argument at all convincing. The reasonable explanations tend to be far more exogenous. What I do think these prestigious names DO provide on your resume is a critical "bar reaching" measure for future employers, which is to say, they can make certain assumptions about you because someone else has already decided you met a certain standard/level of qualifications, so they won't have to. If your CV says "Johns Hopkins" and "Boston Consulting Group," regardless of your actual experiences as a member of those institutions, the future employer sees instantly you've met that bar and can move on. Less time spent proving yourself.

Meeting client delusions/expectations and the above discussion is far more TCR to me than abl's internal skills-driven argument, although admittedly there's probably a hint of truth and hint of exaggeration to each.

Hey, great, attack me instead of my arguments if you'd like. That's definitely not, as you would say, asinine. But if you actually look at what I'm saying, I think you'll see I'm not making a controversial point here -- that not every school provides an identical quality of education. The value of going to a good undergraduate school is not merely the signal that it provides (that you were a good high school student, for whatever that's worth), but also the education that you receive. Once again, note, that I'm only making a very limited proposition: that as a general rule, better schools (however defined) provide a better education.