The clearing cloud

The more I think about where to go to law school, the more I get confused. Originally, my decision was easy: Take the LSAT, apply to all the schools I am interested in, see where I get accepted, see if anybody offers me money and if so how much, then decide between "the most well regarded school I get into (likely the highest ranked)" and "the school that gives me the most money.

The more I talk to people, the more I think this isn't the best way to think about things for a few reasons. First, I was recently talking with a 1L at Loyola (Chicago) about job placement. It seems that the city schools are still able to place fairly well downtown. This wasn't a surprise (after all, people routinely tell perspective law students that "A school's reputation is strongest on its home turf." What was a surprise to me is that after taking a quick look at employment statistics (which are by no means completely accurate) it appears that the difference in schools 20-50 really isn't all that big. This wasn't a huge shock, but it certainly called into question my theory on selecting a school.

The second event that made me think was a mostly serious post I read on another blog. The post said something along the lines of this: "Better schools have better students which means you have to work harder to earn the same place on the curve." Going hand in hand with this is the assumption that equal amounts of work will get you farther towards the top of the class at the weaker of two school. Now I am not lazy (ok.... I'm not always lazy), and I am not going to select a school simply based on where I can slack off more and be ok, but if this is true then it seems where I go really isn't that important because whatever effort I give will end with me essentially having the same job prospects (and if this is true, I am best served by going to the cheapest school I get into).

I am by no means saying that I will select a school according to either of these rubrics. I will probably still fall back on my old theory of selecting school.

That said, it opened my eyes.

And now for a little fun. Here is a conversation I had with a policy holder at work today:

Him: Hi I am X, my daughter had her car towed today, what process do I need to go through to have her car towed.

Me: (Thinking - call a tow truck and give them the address) Well sir, insurance companies do not actually tow vehicles, rather we refund the cost of having a car towed after you have it towed, assuming you have towing coverage.

Him: And what if we do not have towing coverage.

Me: (Thinking - then why the hell are you calling me) Then we do not refund the cost of towing.

Him: Then why do I have insurance.

Me: (Oh God) Well your current policy covers any damage done to your vehicle or another vehicle by your vehicle.

Him: Last time this happened you covered it.

Me: Yes but after that you removed the coverage.

Him: Well I didn't know I would be left holding the bad?.

Me: Excuse me sir?

Him: I didn't know that removing labor and towing coverage would make me have to pay to have my car towed.

Me: (Thinking - what did you think labor and towing covered) Sorry sir, towing is covered under towing coverage.

Him: expletive directed at insurance companies.

Over.

People are friggin stupid.