TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
DerrickRose
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm

TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby DerrickRose » Mon May 03, 2010 1:07 am

Explanation: At some later date (after my finals have finished) I am planning on writing a supermassive post entitled "The TLS Conventional Wisdom Bible" with the intent that it be stickied at the top of this forum to help answer questions in an easier and more general way. (and perhaps "What are my Chances?" as well to triage some of the people that make terrible application decisions)

I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on TLS Conventional Wisdom however. Therefore I am making this thread in order to create debate from which I can collect information.

I'd like the debate to revolve around a couple different things I want to capture accurately in the TLS-CWB:

1. The tiers of upper-level schools. If you had to split the top 20 or so schools into 4-5 groups, how would you do it?

2. Where in the rankings different degrees of "regionalness" start to take hold. I want to solve things like "UVa or UCLA for LA" or "Vandy or Illinois for Chicago".

3. I plan on writing an excoriating criticism of TTT's, but we need to define exactly where that begins.

4. I have a pet idea for creating a TWhatever-type system that incorporates more than the top schools. That way people could use the "rankings" concept in a more accurate, localized sense. For example:
The "Chi21" would be the T18 plus WUSTL/ND/Illinois
The "East22" would be the T18 plus BU/BC/GW/Fordham
The "Cal21" would be the T18 plus UCI/UCH/UCD
and so on.
Just a random idea. Whatever thoughts you have on that would be appreciated.

Get arguing people!

EDIT: Oh, and if you ever come on to this forum thinking "I'm gonna go troll SO hard for ________" and there are no threads available on topic, feel free to post it here. Think of this as a dark, moist underbelly of a bridge. Trolls are welcome.

lakerfanimal
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:22 am

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby lakerfanimal » Mon May 03, 2010 1:46 am

Cool idea, but I don't like the trashing of the low-tier schools deal.

Some speculative thoughts of mine:
for So-Cal, HYSCCNB are all better than UCLA and USC, while the schools lower than that are more debatable. (I'm not trolling for Berkeley, but I think that it's being in california makes it stronger than UCLA and USC in so-cal)

"National" schools end at UCLA/Texas/Vanderbilt it seems like.

User avatar
legalease9
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby legalease9 » Mon May 03, 2010 2:49 am

I think it would be interesting to create some sort of framework to help determine how valuable scholarships are relative to job prospects. I.E. if you get a good scholly at a low ranked school, how do you determine if you should take it or a higher ranked school at sticker. I have NO idea how you would do this, but it would be a good addition.

User avatar
legalease9
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby legalease9 » Mon May 03, 2010 2:55 am

As to question #3, you have to start at school rank 101. This is not only because it is where the T3 "officially" begins, but because its where the schools are no longer numerically ranked, thus making it impossible to judge how the schools are numbered. As an above poster alluded to, I think that any discussion of T3 T4's should be a realistic (i.e. terrifying) view of future job prospects, rather than a "bashing." The difference is subtle, but important.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18406
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby bk1 » Mon May 03, 2010 3:03 am

I could be wrong, but by "TTT" I think he means schools where it is not worthwhile to go pretty much no matter what. Many would argue that this starts somewhere in T2 if not somewhere in T1.

I would also add a section to this about "when to reapply." Things like if your offers aren't worthwhile (i.e. not getting into schools with good prospects) and applying earlier or retaking the LSAT could give you a shot at T1 or T30 or T14 or whatever.

User avatar
legalease9
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby legalease9 » Mon May 03, 2010 3:11 am

bk1 wrote:I could be wrong, but by "TTT" I think he means schools where it is not worthwhile to go pretty much no matter what. Many would argue that this starts somewhere in T2 if not somewhere in T1.

I would also add a section to this about "when to reapply." Things like if your offers aren't worthwhile (i.e. not getting into schools with good prospects) and applying earlier or retaking the LSAT could give you a shot at T1 or T30 or T14 or whatever.


Good idea!

User avatar
legalease9
Posts: 623
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby legalease9 » Mon May 03, 2010 3:14 am

bk1 wrote:I could be wrong, but by "TTT" I think he means schools where it is not worthwhile to go pretty much no matter what. Many would argue that this starts somewhere in T2 if not somewhere in T1.

I would also add a section to this about "when to reapply." Things like if your offers aren't worthwhile (i.e. not getting into schools with good prospects) and applying earlier or retaking the LSAT could give you a shot at T1 or T30 or T14 or whatever.


I honestly don't think there is any school where its not worthwhile to go no matter what, except unaccredited. The employment prospects just get increasingly worse, without much lessening of debt (save schollys) Even if there was such a thing as "no matter what" schools, it won't conform to USNEWS rankings in an effective way.

User avatar
DerrickRose
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby DerrickRose » Mon May 03, 2010 12:14 pm

legalease9 wrote:I honestly don't think there is any school where its not worthwhile to go no matter what, except unaccredited.


I strenuously disagree, but that's why we're doing this.

I just think there is no way in hell someone should ever go to a school like Cooley or NYLS.

Or Ave Maria, or Southwestern, or John Marshall, or Golden Gate, and so on and so on.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby Always Credited » Mon May 03, 2010 12:31 pm

Nightrunner wrote:
DerrickRose wrote:4. I have a pet idea for creating a TWhatever-type system that incorporates more than the top schools. That way people could use the "rankings" concept in a more accurate, localized sense. For example:
The "Chi21" would be the T18 plus WUSTL/ND/Illinois
The "East22" would be the T18 plus BU/BC/GW/Fordham
The "Cal21" would be the T18 plus UCI/UCH/UCD
and so on.
Just a random idea. Whatever thoughts you have on that would be appreciated.

If you actually do this, the T18 is probably not the best cutoff. If I wanted Chicago, I'd rather be top 10% at Iowa, Wisonsin, or even Kent than top 10% at USC.


Agreed...I think a list should be tailor made for each region. There are schools in the T18 that are waaaay more regional than national in nature. But I do really like the idea Derrick...don't listen to the TTT supporters. Cooley and the like need to be crucified, and its gotta be a public execution.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 03, 2010 12:32 pm

Yale>T3>T6>MVPBDNC>Vandy-Gulc-Texas-UCLA-USC

User avatar
BaiAilian2013
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby BaiAilian2013 » Mon May 03, 2010 12:32 pm

There's no cutoff for TTTs, because tiers 3 and 4 aren't a homogenous group. There are cheap, often small public schools that place decently within their regions, and then there are expensive private schools like Golden Gate etc. that have insane 1L attrition rates and not so good placement. You could list them all out and debate which schools go in which category - and I think the latter category does deserve some serious criticism - but there's no magical cutoff in the rankings, because the two types are intermixed.

User avatar
DerrickRose
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby DerrickRose » Mon May 03, 2010 12:33 pm

Nightrunner wrote:
DerrickRose wrote:4. I have a pet idea for creating a TWhatever-type system that incorporates more than the top schools. That way people could use the "rankings" concept in a more accurate, localized sense. For example:
The "Chi21" would be the T18 plus WUSTL/ND/Illinois
The "East22" would be the T18 plus BU/BC/GW/Fordham
The "Cal21" would be the T18 plus UCI/UCH/UCD
and so on.
Just a random idea. Whatever thoughts you have on that would be appreciated.

If you actually do this, the T18 is probably not the best cutoff. If I wanted Chicago, I'd rather be top 10% at Iowa, Wisonsin, or even Kent than top 10% at USC.


That's what I was thinking. But what about Vandy or UT? Or even GULC or Cornell?

That's why I'm asking the regionalness question. If there are T14's that are no good in certain parts of the country, that's important.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 03, 2010 12:34 pm

DerrickRose wrote:Explanation: At some later date (after my finals have finished) I am planning on writing a supermassive post entitled "The TLS Conventional Wisdom Bible" with the intent that it be stickied at the top of this forum to help answer questions in an easier and more general way. (and perhaps "What are my Chances?" as well to triage some of the people that make terrible application decisions)

I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on TLS Conventional Wisdom however. Therefore I am making this thread in order to create debate from which I can collect information.

I'd like the debate to revolve around a couple different things I want to capture accurately in the TLS-CWB:

1. The tiers of upper-level schools. If you had to split the top 20 or so schools into 4-5 groups, how would you do it?

2. Where in the rankings different degrees of "regionalness" start to take hold. I want to solve things like "UVa or UCLA for LA" or "Vandy or Illinois for Chicago".

3. I plan on writing an excoriating criticism of TTT's, but we need to define exactly where that begins.

4. I have a pet idea for creating a TWhatever-type system that incorporates more than the top schools. That way people could use the "rankings" concept in a more accurate, localized sense. For example:
The "Chi21" would be the T18 plus WUSTL/ND/Illinois
The "East22" would be the T18 plus BU/BC/GW/Fordham
The "Cal21" would be the T18 plus UCI/UCH/UCD
and so on.
Just a random idea. Whatever thoughts you have on that would be appreciated.

Get arguing people!

EDIT: Oh, and if you ever come on to this forum thinking "I'm gonna go troll SO hard for ________" and there are no threads available on topic, feel free to post it here. Think of this as a dark, moist underbelly of a bridge. Trolls are welcome.


3. I plan on writing an excoriating criticism of TTT's, but we need to define exactly where that begins.

Slightly below your law school.

Or

After UCHastings.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby Always Credited » Mon May 03, 2010 12:36 pm

BaiAilian2013 wrote:There's no cutoff for TTTs, because tiers 3 and 4 aren't a homogenous group. There are cheap, often small public schools that place decently within their regions, and then there are expensive private schools like Golden Gate etc. that have insane 1L attrition rates and not so good placement. You could list them all out and debate which schools go in which category - and I think the latter category does deserve some serious criticism - but there's no magical cutoff in the rankings, because the two types are intermixed.


Exactly why it shouldn't be a sweeping criticism; rather, the more notorious TTTT's should be called out as scams.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 03, 2010 12:36 pm

DerrickRose wrote:Explanation: At some later date (after my finals have finished) I am planning on writing a supermassive post entitled "The TLS Conventional Wisdom Bible" with the intent that it be stickied at the top of this forum to help answer questions in an easier and more general way. (and perhaps "What are my Chances?" as well to triage some of the people that make terrible application decisions)

I don't claim to be the ultimate authority on TLS Conventional Wisdom however. Therefore I am making this thread in order to create debate from which I can collect information.

I'd like the debate to revolve around a couple different things I want to capture accurately in the TLS-CWB:

1. The tiers of upper-level schools. If you had to split the top 20 or so schools into 4-5 groups, how would you do it?

2. Where in the rankings different degrees of "regionalness" start to take hold. I want to solve things like "UVa or UCLA for LA" or "Vandy or Illinois for Chicago".

3. I plan on writing an excoriating criticism of TTT's, but we need to define exactly where that begins.

4. I have a pet idea for creating a TWhatever-type system that incorporates more than the top schools. That way people could use the "rankings" concept in a more accurate, localized sense. For example:
The "Chi21" would be the T18 plus WUSTL/ND/Illinois
The "East22" would be the T18 plus BU/BC/GW/Fordham
The "Cal21" would be the T18 plus UCI/UCH/UCD
and so on.
Just a random idea. Whatever thoughts you have on that would be appreciated.

Get arguing people!

EDIT: Oh, and if you ever come on to this forum thinking "I'm gonna go troll SO hard for ________" and there are no threads available on topic, feel free to post it here. Think of this as a dark, moist underbelly of a bridge. Trolls are welcome.



2. Where in the rankings different degrees of "regionalness" start to take hold. I want to solve things like "UVa or UCLA for LA" or "Vandy or Illinois for Chicago".

Regionalism starts after Yale. But after Gtown its entirely regional.

User avatar
DerrickRose
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby DerrickRose » Mon May 03, 2010 12:37 pm

Always Credited wrote:
BaiAilian2013 wrote:There's no cutoff for TTTs, because tiers 3 and 4 aren't a homogenous group. There are cheap, often small public schools that place decently within their regions, and then there are expensive private schools like Golden Gate etc. that have insane 1L attrition rates and not so good placement. You could list them all out and debate which schools go in which category - and I think the latter category does deserve some serious criticism - but there's no magical cutoff in the rankings, because the two types are intermixed.


Exactly why it shouldn't be a sweeping criticism; rather, the more notorious TTTT's should be called out as scams.


There are 20-25 law schools that simply shouldn't exist if you believe in rational market actors. That will be made known.

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Mon May 03, 2010 12:38 pm

Nightrunner wrote:
DerrickRose wrote:4. I have a pet idea for creating a TWhatever-type system that incorporates more than the top schools. That way people could use the "rankings" concept in a more accurate, localized sense. For example:
The "Chi21" would be the T18 plus WUSTL/ND/Illinois
The "East22" would be the T18 plus BU/BC/GW/Fordham
The "Cal21" would be the T18 plus UCI/UCH/UCD
and so on.
Just a random idea. Whatever thoughts you have on that would be appreciated.

If you actually do this, the T18 is probably not the best cutoff. If I wanted Chicago, I'd rather be top 10% at Iowa, Wisonsin, or even Kent than top 10% at USC.


For this reason, among others, this would be impossible.

There is no clear data on 1) where the students originate from, 2) where the student that originates from state X ends up exactly, and 3) in what capacity.

I see your idea and it is interesting. However making blanket assertions beyond the fact that the T14 are best for big law without additional evidence is pretty weak at best.

i.e. Vanderbilt places around 7% in Chicago. Is Vanderbilt a better choice for Chicago than UIUC? There is no data. True Vanderbilt places more in big law, but only a small portion of its students end up in Chicago. Without knowing their 1) rank and 2) what capacity they are working in, the study would have no value and would potentially mislead students.

or

recommending USC or UCLA over other regional schools in their home markets. Depending on where you want to work, UIUC>USC/UCLA or Emory>USC/UCLA.

For the purposes of national OCI, USC/UCLA/Vanderbilt should not be included. True Vanderbilt has a high big law potential, but it has not clout in CA and probably little in IL.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the study is useless and therefore I hope that you do not dedicate a lot of time that you could be spending on more fruitful endeavors on it.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby keg411 » Mon May 03, 2010 12:41 pm

BaiAilian2013 wrote:There's no cutoff for TTTs, because tiers 3 and 4 aren't a homogenous group. There are cheap, often small public schools that place decently within their regions, and then there are expensive private schools like Golden Gate etc. that have insane 1L attrition rates and not so good placement. You could list them all out and debate which schools go in which category - and I think the latter category does deserve some serious criticism - but there's no magical cutoff in the rankings, because the two types are intermixed.


This x infinity.

Especially if it's the applicant's home market. For instance, West Virginia is probably not a bad place to go if you are from WV, want to practice there, and have some idea of what kind of jobs are available out of the school. If the applicant is OOS, has no connections or idea of the legal market, and wants to practice in NYC, it's a terrible idea.

User avatar
DerrickRose
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby DerrickRose » Mon May 03, 2010 12:42 pm

Aberzombie1892 wrote:Essentially what I'm saying is that the study is useless and therefore I hope that you do not dedicate a lot of time that you could be spending on more fruitful endeavors on it.


If I only use the time I usually spend looking up snarky image macros to make fun of people with stupid questions in this forum, is that worthwhile?

All that stuff you just said, people don't have that, and they need that. That's why I'm (eventually getting around to) doing this.

User avatar
Always Credited
Posts: 2509
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby Always Credited » Mon May 03, 2010 1:00 pm

DerrickRose wrote:
Always Credited wrote:
BaiAilian2013 wrote:There's no cutoff for TTTs, because tiers 3 and 4 aren't a homogenous group. There are cheap, often small public schools that place decently within their regions, and then there are expensive private schools like Golden Gate etc. that have insane 1L attrition rates and not so good placement. You could list them all out and debate which schools go in which category - and I think the latter category does deserve some serious criticism - but there's no magical cutoff in the rankings, because the two types are intermixed.


Exactly why it shouldn't be a sweeping criticism; rather, the more notorious TTTT's should be called out as scams.


There are 20-25 law schools that simply shouldn't exist if you believe in rational market actors. That will be made known.


+1

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby Mr. Matlock » Mon May 03, 2010 1:06 pm

DerrickRose wrote:
legalease9 wrote:I honestly don't think there is any school where its not worthwhile to go no matter what, except unaccredited.


I strenuously disagree, but that's why we're doing this.

I just think there is no way in hell someone should ever go to a school like Cooley or NYLS.

Or Ave Maria, or Southwestern, or John Marshall, or Golden Gate, and so on and so on.

Wow. Just wow.

User avatar
DerrickRose
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby DerrickRose » Mon May 03, 2010 1:09 pm

Mr. Matlock wrote:
DerrickRose wrote:
legalease9 wrote:I honestly don't think there is any school where its not worthwhile to go no matter what, except unaccredited.


I strenuously disagree, but that's why we're doing this.

I just think there is no way in hell someone should ever go to a school like Cooley or NYLS.

Or Ave Maria, or Southwestern, or John Marshall, or Golden Gate, and so on and so on.

Wow. Just wow.


I take it you disagree?

User avatar
quetzalcoatl
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:23 am

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby quetzalcoatl » Mon May 03, 2010 1:25 pm

legalease9 wrote:I think it would be interesting to create some sort of framework to help determine how valuable scholarships are relative to job prospects. I.E. if you get a good scholly at a low ranked school, how do you determine if you should take it or a higher ranked school at sticker. I have NO idea how you would do this, but it would be a good addition.


This would be awesome, but I dont think schools give out the kind of detailed data you would need. You would need some kind of earnings growth rate and some other data points. It would be really cool if someone could make a LSP style spread sheet that could calculate this.

ughOSU
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby ughOSU » Mon May 03, 2010 1:30 pm

< 160 LSAT --> Go to business school

That's the TLS conventional wisdom as I understand it.

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: TLS Conventional Wisdom Collection Agency

Postby D. H2Oman » Mon May 03, 2010 1:31 pm

ughOSU wrote:< 160 LSAT --> Go to business school

That's the TLS conventional wisdom as I understand it.



TLS CW>>>>Less the 160 LSAT means stop going to school and get a real job.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EvanWilliams2 and 1 guest