I was thinking about my last post and don't want it to sound like I was bashing the fancy expensive schools. I expect they're pretty good and part of me is envious of the students who get such a rich experience. And at my own school, after the top 20 or so students the level of discourse dropped way way off. But good heavens, the smart ones were really smart. Do they (we?) deserve to be second class citizens?
No, you (they) do *not* deserve to be second-class citizens. And any lawyer with half a brain realizes that top-tier people do come from lower-tier schools. I suppose one problem is that, in the adversarial setting typical of law practice, many lawyers get in the habit of looking for an edge over others. I went to a name law school; she didn't. I went to Harvard; she went to Penn. I went to Harvard straight through; she went Harvard for law school but to Rutgers undergrad. And so on and so on. Just as some lawyers always have to have the last word, some always have to have one up on the other guy or gal. But, as with any character flaw, you can use that to your advantage, Sherry -- the arrogant boob will be all the more stunned when he hears you make an excellent argument that he wasn't prepared for.
Posted by: John P. | September 22, 2003 at 12:08 PM
Another thing to remember is that the things you mention differ as you go from place to place in the U.S.
Where there are regional law schools with strong Alumni populations, there is more of a recognition that there is more -- especially as the people who have migrated there are often not quite of the top tier.
For example, as a result, in Dallas, Texas, Harvard grads are more likely to be the butt of jokes for getting thrashed by SMU grads.
And there just aren't enough Yalies for anyone to think about them.
UT may be a top tier law school, but everyone has met people from the bottom part of the class ...
And so it goes.
Posted by: Stephen | September 29, 2003 at 08:42 PM