Top Law Schools

Bronte wrote:The current solution is flawed, but it's not "worthless" and it's not "wrong," assuming the methodology is disclosed. We need a proxy for 2009 clerkship data (at least to according to the goal of the thread).

That's the point I disagree with. There is no adequate proxy. We don't "need" something that doesn't work. Even if it sucks the least, it still sucks.

crackberry wrote:Kronk - I need you in the Berkeley Haters thread. Where are you?

Where is that at? If it's Slickback, make fun of the fact that he is 550th out of 550 in GPA for his HLS class.

Kronk wrote:

crackberry wrote:Kronk - I need you in the Berkeley Haters thread. Where are you?

Where is that at? If it's Slickback, make fun of the fact that he is 550th out of 550 in GPA for his HLS class.

Choosing a law school. Some idiots are claiming that Chicago > Berkeley as an overall university.

Bronte wrote:Goal: adjust 2009 NLJ250 figures to reflect the percentage of the class that went into clerkships. Problem: 2009 clerkship data doesn't exist. Current solution: use 2008 clerkship data as a proxy.

The current solution is flawed, but it's not "worthless" and it's not "wrong," assuming the methodology is disclosed. We need a proxy for 2009 clerkship data (at least to according to the goal of the thread). Maybe a better proxy would be the average of the past few years, although it would still be flawed. Has anyone considered, though, that clerkships might be considerably more stable considering that they are government rather than private sector jobs and thus were likely less affected by the crisis in the private sector?

You're right, of course, that the number of clerkship positions did not change. That's not the issue. The issue is that when the economy tanks and firm hiring goes way down (as it did between 2008 and 2009), graduates of T6 schools tend to gravitate towards clerkships in greater numbers than they did before. In other words, there is reason to think that the variability in one factor is related to the variability of the other factor.

If clerkship figures were entirely independent of firm hiring and were unlikely to change, then I would have less of a problem with carrying them forward and adding them to the current NLJ250 list. But when you consider that we have volatile conditions, and when you consider that the two measures at issue may be inversely correlated for some schools, it borders on sophistry to add the 2008 and 2009 figures together into one "percentage."

.

.

jmaan wrote:i like this list the most.....i tried to give it its own thread but nobody really bit....

"As for the methodology of our list, we considered and weighted three criteria for each school: U.S. News & World Report (20%), National Law Journal Go-To ranks (40%) and Super Lawyer ranks (40%). Because we wanted the list to represent which schools are best for lawyers who want to have significant standing in their respective field or within the industry, we weighted U.S. News less than the other two factors, as it attempts to rank the quality of education rather than pure post-grad employability."

Col
H
M
V
N
B
Chi
S
N
G

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-law ... ots-2010-2

Biased toward larger class sizes much?

AngryAvocado wrote:

jmaan wrote:i like this list the most.....i tried to give it its own thread but nobody really bit....

"As for the methodology of our list, we considered and weighted three criteria for each school: U.S. News & World Report (20%), National Law Journal Go-To ranks (40%) and Super Lawyer ranks (40%). Because we wanted the list to represent which schools are best for lawyers who want to have significant standing in their respective field or within the industry, we weighted U.S. News less than the other two factors, as it attempts to rank the quality of education rather than pure post-grad employability."

Col
H
M
V
N
B
Chi
S
N
G

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-law ... ots-2010-2

Biased toward larger class sizes much?

It's because the Super Lawyers thing goes by total numbers instead of percentages. +1 LSAT point!

TTT-LS wrote:

Dignan wrote:The issue is that when the economy tanks and firm hiring goes way down (as it did between 2008 and 2009), graduates of T6 schools tend to gravitate towards clerkships in greater numbers than they did before. In other words, there is reason to think that the variability in one factor is related to the variability of the other factor.

If clerkship figures were entirely independent of firm hiring and were unlikely to change, then I would have less of a problem with carrying them forward and adding them to the current NLJ250 list. But when you consider that we have volatile conditions, and when you consider that the two measures at issue may be inversely correlated for some schools, it borders on sophistry to add the 2008 and 2009 figures together into one "percentage."

I don't know who you are, so I won't ascribe any particular knowledge or lack of knowledge re: how clerkship hiring works. Instead, I'll just try to share my experience and knowledge as a 3L who went through the clerkship hiring process last summer, and who will starting a federal COA clerkship this summer.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I am, by the way, a 0L who knows nothing (beyond what I've read online) about the clerkship hiring process. And my comments pertain to all Article III clerkships (not just COA), because that's what the OP was using.

The last time the economy tanked between 2002-2004, clerkship placement for Columbia and Chicago went up. When the economy improved and hiring increased from 2005-2008, their clerkship placement rates dropped back down. And now, for the class of 2010, Columbia is reporting that its clerkship placement is up over 30% (caveat: the 30% figure comes via a TLS'er who talked to the CLS admissions office, so don't take it to the bank). There is some indication--at least at the CC level--that clerkship placement is inversely related to firm placement success.

By the way, congratulations on landing a COA clerkship! That is awesome.

This thread makes me

ITT: TTT-LS tells 0Ls.

I thought this crop of 0L placement experts was even more obnoxious than those in the past (anyone remember Emmy?). But TTT-LS has reminded me that most of us went through that stage...and, thankfully, past it.

The first few days of law school make you realize how much of what is discussed and debated on TLS has very little meaning, or is only pertinent to 0Ls.

I appreciate anyone who wants to put together some stats, however flawed they may be. Virtually any compilation of stats is bound to be probative of something. I appreciate the effort by anyone who puts something like that together. Whether I accept or reject certain conclusions about the data is my choice, and I try mentally separate that from thoughts I have about the person who put the numbers together.

JSUVA2012 wrote:ITT: TTT-LS tells 0Ls.

I thought this crop of 0L placement experts was even more obnoxious than those in the past (anyone remember Emmy?). But TTT-LS has reminded me that most of us went through that stage...and, thankfully, past it.

The first few days of law school make you realize how much of what is discussed and debated on TLS has very little meaning, or is only pertinent to 0Ls.

UVA Law is a glorified softball league.

Who's Emmy?

Kronk wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:ITT: TTT-LS tells 0Ls.

I thought this crop of 0L placement experts was even more obnoxious than those in the past (anyone remember Emmy?). But TTT-LS has reminded me that most of us went through that stage...and, thankfully, past it.

The first few days of law school make you realize how much of what is discussed and debated on TLS has very little meaning, or is only pertinent to 0Ls.

UVA Law is a glorified softball league.

You mean I can have Biglaw placement with my softball? Where do I sign up

stratocophic wrote:

Kronk wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:ITT: TTT-LS tells 0Ls.

I thought this crop of 0L placement experts was even more obnoxious than those in the past (anyone remember Emmy?). But TTT-LS has reminded me that most of us went through that stage...and, thankfully, past it.

The first few days of law school make you realize how much of what is discussed and debated on TLS has very little meaning, or is only pertinent to 0Ls.

UVA Law is a glorified softball league.

You mean I can have Biglaw placement with my softball? Where do I sign up

Eh, slightly more complicated than that. You have to agree to pitch underhand, wear polos. Extreme splitters preferable.

Kronk wrote:

stratocophic wrote:

Kronk wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:ITT: TTT-LS tells 0Ls.

I thought this crop of 0L placement experts was even more obnoxious than those in the past (anyone remember Emmy?). But TTT-LS has reminded me that most of us went through that stage...and, thankfully, past it.

The first few days of law school make you realize how much of what is discussed and debated on TLS has very little meaning, or is only pertinent to 0Ls.

UVA Law is a glorified softball league.

You mean I can have Biglaw placement with my softball? Where do I sign up

Eh, slightly more complicated than that. You have to agree to pitch underhand, wear polos. Extreme splitters preferable.

No only moderate splitters wanted. Extreme splitters not wanted. You must be thinking of NU kickball.

Kronk - can we still smear Dugas' car with rotten bananas and newspaper?

Kronk wrote:

stratocophic wrote:

Kronk wrote:

JSUVA2012 wrote:ITT: TTT-LS tells 0Ls.

I thought this crop of 0L placement experts was even more obnoxious than those in the past (anyone remember Emmy?). But TTT-LS has reminded me that most of us went through that stage...and, thankfully, past it.

The first few days of law school make you realize how much of what is discussed and debated on TLS has very little meaning, or is only pertinent to 0Ls.

UVA Law is a glorified softball league.

You mean I can have Biglaw placement with my softball? Where do I sign up

Eh, slightly more complicated than that. You have to agree to pitch underhand, wear polos. Extreme splitters preferable.

Huh... as long as they don't require popped collars, I guess. I'm UVA's kind of splitter, somewhat less extreme than DF.

.

crackberry wrote:Kronk - can we still smear Dugas' car with rotten bananas and newspaper?

I would feel pretty bad after they gave me that offer. But yes. As long as we use the bananas to plaster on monopoly money to symbolically represent the worth of a UVALSL degree.

Desert Fox wrote:

Kronk wrote: Eh, slightly more complicated than that. You have to agree to pitch underhand, wear polos. Extreme splitters preferable.

No only moderate splitters wanted. Extreme splitters not wanted. You must be thinking of NU kickball.

We get to play kickball?!

TTT-LS wrote:
Oh, and w/r/t extreme splitters - go team. DF, you're in good company.

Yea I really got to step it in law school, or I'll embarrass my splitter brotherhood.

jmaan wrote:i like this list the most.....i tried to give it its own thread but nobody really bit....

"As for the methodology of our list, we considered and weighted three criteria for each school: U.S. News & World Report (20%), National Law Journal Go-To ranks (40%) and Super Lawyer ranks (40%). Because we wanted the list to represent which schools are best for lawyers who want to have significant standing in their respective field or within the industry, we weighted U.S. News less than the other two factors, as it attempts to rank the quality of education rather than pure post-grad employability."

Col
H
M
V
N
B
Chi
S
N
G

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-law ... ots-2010-2

Nice....not surprised Columbia is pwning. YS is full of dreamers and idealists.

.

JSUVA2012 wrote: I appreciate anyone who wants to put together some stats, however flawed they may be. Virtually any compilation of stats is bound to be probative of something.

I'm working on some stats covering placement in BigFirm softball leagues. So far Virginia and Texas are just about tied for 1st. Also, does anyone have stats on students/restrooms? I hate having to deal with crowds.

In all seriousness; I've been trying to figure out some rational basis to make a real comparison between the law schools I've gotten into with little success. It's a little frustrating because of the preponderance of extraordinarily *bad* info. Law schools have been acculturated into bullshitting their placement stats and everything else because of the goddamned rankings, leaving in their wake a swath of useless leads.

Oh well, I've got some good options. It's just frustrating to make an important decision based on little more than suspect stats, the anecdotes of a handful of law students + alumni, and hunches.