Top Law Schools

Baylor grabbed better students last spring than Iowa/OSU. Median 162. Baylor is ranked mid tier 2?

I post this because there are plenty of people that would go pay OOS at OSU or Iowa, not realizing that they are really going there because Ohio State has a great football team.

But like I said perception is reality and I suppose they can use that perception to have a better career if they play their cards right.

athenian wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:
The football thing was just an example. You miss my point. Stanford has name recognition too (and is also an incredible school). There are other ways to get your name out, but the football team is honestly the best way. Just look at all the Big 10 law schools and the schools right next to them in the rankings. Minus Michigan/Minn they are overrated.

EDIT- Oh wait Stanford does have a good football team. I don't keep up. So yes, I agree with you.

I can't help but think that your argument about football teams is total crap. Look at Oregon's football team (ranked 2nd). Now look at their law school (ranked 80th). The University of Chicago doesn't even have a football team... why are they ranked so highly (note: none of the "old judges" surveyed by USNWR are likely to remember when U Chicago played college football).

Yeah its just an example and is not true across the board. You're right.

birdlaw117 wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:You're excluding a lot of factors in your "analysis." One major one is that up until 1995, US News only ranked the top 25 schools in the country. Iowa debuted on the 1991 list at number 19. It logically follows that it would be held in higher regard than other schools that were excluded from that list in the minds of the raters, who've been around much longer than you and I. "The evil you know is always better than the one you don't."

Also, you 0Ls kill me with this idea that X rank at one school is equal to X rank at another. Additionally, this is just a stupid argument to even concern yourself with. Go to DU or Colorado if you want to work in Colorado, the rankings shouldn't even come into play if you aren't talking about the ten or so most prestigious schools in the country.

Certainly factors could be added to make this, and really anything, more complex. The peer review thing is complained loudly by schools like Stetson (great school, no chance to move up). It isn't talked a lot about. It is also not neccesarilly a bad thing, as perception is reality and having a T-14 on your resume will get you interviews that University of Colorado will want. This could be huge if you wanted to move frequently, working all over the country.

Good point on the initial rankings by the way.

In fairness, peer review rankings reflect how a lot of legal hiring works. They hire from schools they went to, or partners went to, or whatever the case may be. It works in a similar way. Therefore, since obtaining a job is a goal of most law school grads, it is not at all inconsistent to use this as a measure for a ranking.

Defenitely. Even more so if you want to move around within your region. UF at sticker better than Maimi full scholly if you want to work throughout florida in your life, Maimi better if you would like to stay with your family in that city. Well actually Miami is huge and probably has alums everywhere, despite the worse repuation, but you see where I'm going with that.

mrwarre85 wrote:Baylor grabbed better students last spring than Iowa/OSU. Median 162. Baylor is ranked mid tier 2?

I post this because there are plenty of people that would go pay OOS at OSU or Iowa, not realizing that they are really going there because Ohio State has a great football team.

But like I said perception is reality and I suppose they can use that perception to have a better career if they play their cards right.

I'm sure people might go to Ohio State for undergrad because of their football team but I doubt that is true for their law school. THere are also other reasons that a school can be good besides their LSAT. Look at Berkeley. They are very selective but not only based off numbers.

AreJay711 wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:Baylor grabbed better students last spring than Iowa/OSU. Median 162. Baylor is ranked mid tier 2?

I post this because there are plenty of people that would go pay OOS at OSU or Iowa, not realizing that they are really going there because Ohio State has a great football team.

But like I said perception is reality and I suppose they can use that perception to have a better career if they play their cards right.

I'm sure people might go to Ohio State for undergrad because of their football team but I doubt that is true for their law school. THere are also other reasons that a school can be good besides their LSAT. Look at Berkeley. They are very selective but not only based off numbers.

Good point on Berkely, seems to be a great exception.

You miss me on the football thing-- they don't realize they are going to OSU because of the football team, the "football team," or the "positive name recognition from some other factor," gives OSU great scores on the peer ranking section of USNWR. The students go to OSU because of rankings, all made possible by the "football team."

mrwarre85 wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:Baylor grabbed better students last spring than Iowa/OSU. Median 162. Baylor is ranked mid tier 2?

I post this because there are plenty of people that would go pay OOS at OSU or Iowa, not realizing that they are really going there because Ohio State has a great football team.

But like I said perception is reality and I suppose they can use that perception to have a better career if they play their cards right.

I'm sure people might go to Ohio State for undergrad because of their football team but I doubt that is true for their law school. THere are also other reasons that a school can be good besides their LSAT. Look at Berkeley. They are very selective but not only based off numbers.

Good point on Berkely, seems to be a great exception.

You miss me on the football thing-- they don't realize they are going to OSU because of the football team, the "football team," or the "positive name recognition from some other factor," gives OSU great scores on the peer ranking section of USNWR. The students go to OSU because of rankings, all made possible by the "football team."

Okay, let's go back to some LSAT reasoning here. You are making a huge assumption that because SOME high ranked law schools have prestigious football teams (no quotes necessary, as they are actual teams), that there is a CAUSATION here. However, we all know correlation =/= causation. It is very likely that the correlation here (which I am not all that confident even exists) is the result of a common cause.

The common cause would be old prestigious universities. You reference the Big Ten. The Big Ten has a long history in all fields, not just football. But you when you back a long time, you will realize Harvard and Yale were once football powerhouses. When you look at the great football teams of recent, there isn't the same correlation. This means it is more likely to be the result of universities with great tradition in all areas, not just football.

birdlaw117 wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:Baylor grabbed better students last spring than Iowa/OSU. Median 162. Baylor is ranked mid tier 2?

I post this because there are plenty of people that would go pay OOS at OSU or Iowa, not realizing that they are really going there because Ohio State has a great football team.

But like I said perception is reality and I suppose they can use that perception to have a better career if they play their cards right.

I'm sure people might go to Ohio State for undergrad because of their football team but I doubt that is true for their law school. THere are also other reasons that a school can be good besides their LSAT. Look at Berkeley. They are very selective but not only based off numbers.

Good point on Berkely, seems to be a great exception.

You miss me on the football thing-- they don't realize they are going to OSU because of the football team, the "football team," or the "positive name recognition from some other factor," gives OSU great scores on the peer ranking section of USNWR. The students go to OSU because of rankings, all made possible by the "football team."

Okay, let's go back to some LSAT reasoning here. You are making a huge assumption that because SOME high ranked law schools have prestigious football teams (no quotes necessary, as they are actual teams), that there is a CAUSATION here. However, we all know correlation =/= causation. It is very likely that the correlation here (which I am not all that confident even exists) is the result of a common cause.

The common cause would be old prestigious universities. You reference the Big Ten. The Big Ten has a long history in all fields, not just football. But you when you back a long time, you will realize Harvard and Yale were once football powerhouses. When you look at the great football teams of recent, there isn't the same correlation. This means it is more likely to be the result of universities with great tradition in all areas, not just football.

The "football team" is not exactly literal here. I agree with you.

mrwarre85 wrote:Baylor grabbed better students last spring than Iowa/OSU. Median 162. Baylor is ranked mid tier 2?

I post this because there are plenty of people that would go pay OOS at OSU or Iowa, not realizing that they are really going there because Ohio State has a great football team.

But like I said perception is reality and I suppose they can use that perception to have a better career if they play their cards right.

Anyone who goes to OSU or Iowa with the intention of practicing in Texas is a dumb ass.

Anyone who goes to Baylor or Iowa with the intention of practicing in Ohio is a dumb ass.

Anyone who goes to OSU or Baylor with the intention of practicing in Iowa is a dumb ass.

It seems to me that none of you are actually from the Midwest as Iowa actually places very well in Minnesota. Of course, I'm thinking most of you really don't have big plans to come to the Twin Cities, but hey. The thing is that Iowa is a public school and is a bargain for Iowans as they can pursue legal studies at a great university for only 20K a year. Not only that, but most state schools have either overt statements to educate the state's legal leadership or at the very least give a a little leeway on grades and numbers to state residents. This means that school like Iowa has a harder time keeping their numbers up as not everyone wants to live in Iowa or stay once they're done with they're education. However, those that do get educated there tend to stay or at the most go to the Chicago legal market ( which sucks, but to be honest I don't know why anyone even refers to a specific legal market sucking when they ALL suck at the moment).

The University of Minnesota has the same kind of problem that Iowa does, except Minnesota has a larger population to draw from and has more people that enjoy the notion of staying in the Twin Cities rather than moving to Chicago, New York, or California. So, Minnesota tends to "suffer" in statistics about job placement in big firms compared to their peer schools. However, what is really the case is that Minnesotans tend to stay in the state and of course Minnesota doesn't have near the number of big firms as the larger metro areas. That being said, I personally think that you can get a degree from the University of Minnesota and find employment in places other than Minnesota etc. I also feel that you can get a degree at Iowa and find employment in other states and markets. However, I don't see a degree from the University of Denver getting you a lot of work outside of well.. Denver.

Plus you have to remember that lawyers outside of Iowa that run into lawyers from the University of Iowa are probably running into the top 20% of the class. Believe it or not Iowa also has a rather respected group of law professors.

Plus, snap out of the LSAT bubble. Scoring well on the LSAT does not correlate to being good at the law, simply a good predictor that you might be good at studying law. Not to mention that if you want to be a litigator, which is my aspiration, being able to bubble in the right answers to a test does not make you a convincing speaker or show that you are good at handling pressure at anything other than shading.

mrwarre85 wrote:

UnitarySpace wrote:Repost from a less appropriate board:

Stanford, with a median LSAT of 170, is the 3rd ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Georgetown, ranked 14th, and Northwestern, ranked 11th, both have median LSATs at 170. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally about as smart here as at Stanford (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Stanford is a Pac Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the Northwestern or Stanford? He doesn't know much about the Midwest, so he says, Stanford of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Stanford is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Stanford does have better job placement and the students in Stanford are generally smarter, but NU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Stanford.

Both schools are great. Stanford has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Stanford will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Stanford may be a better school than Georgetown or NU, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to Stanford or, say, the GULC, ranked 11 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to Stanford because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to Stanford and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at NU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

The football thing was just an example. You miss my point. Stanford has name recognition too (and is also an incredible school). There are other ways to get your name out, but the football team is honestly the best way. Just look at all the Big 10 law schools and the schools right next to them in the rankings. Minus Michigan/Minn they are overrated.

EDIT- Oh wait Stanford does have a good football team. I don't keep up. So yes, I agree with you.

This is the 1st year that Stanford has had a good football team - their horrendous rankings for the last 5 years doesn't explain their top 3 position since 1990. So many so many soooo many schools have horrible football teams & great law rankings.

mrwarre85 wrote:Repost from a less appropriate board:

Iowa, with a median LSAT of 161, is the 26th ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Colorado, ranked 38th, and SMU, ranked 48th, both have median LSATs at 164. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally smarter here than at Iowa (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Iowa is a Big Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the University of Denver or Iowa? He has never watched collegiate ice hockey, so he says, Iowa of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Iowa is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Iowa does have better job placement and the students in Iowa are generally smarter (161 vs 159), but DU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Iowa.

Both schools are great. Iowa has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Iowa will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Iowa may be a better school than Denver, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to CU because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to CU and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at DU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

anyone else preliminary waitlisted in the 170s?

mrwarre85 wrote:
The football thing was just an example. You miss my point. Stanford has name recognition too (and is also an incredible school). There are other ways to get your name out, but the football team is honestly the best way. Just look at all the Big 10 law schools and the schools right next to them in the rankings. Minus Michigan/Minn they are overrated.

Northwestern? Illinois?

Is there anything prettier than a perfect counterexample?

Shaggier1 wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:
The football thing was just an example. You miss my point. Stanford has name recognition too (and is also an incredible school). There are other ways to get your name out, but the football team is honestly the best way. Just look at all the Big 10 law schools and the schools right next to them in the rankings. Minus Michigan/Minn they are overrated.

Northwestern? Illinois?

Is there anything prettier than a perfect counterexample?

Yes ok.. lots of people missed what I was saying about football, but I'll just let it go.

the Big Picture= employers do not care about usnews rankings.

Not to mention I don't really know a lot of people going to Iowa that are not from the Midwest. I think the rankings give prospective law students a chance to see what schools are out there and roughly what schools are better than others. Of course better is a subjective term. I will most likely be going to the University of Minnesota no matter what, as I want to practice law in Minnesota and not for any of the "big firms." Plus my overall goal in life is to have my own small practice someday and not have to work for anyone but my clients.

Also, you are bashing the University of Iowa and Big Ten schools law schools in general for not actually attending one and simply rating them on student's numbers. I personally attend a smallish liber arts college (that gets off calling its self a university) that does not have nearly as good of student numbers as say the big ten schools, but from personal exeprience I've ran circles around kids from the University of Minnesota when it comes to my major field etc. I also know a good number of kids from my school going on to T-25 law schools. Do not rate education on just student's numbers, don't hate on Iowa just because its ranked higher than a school you might end up attending, and if you want to practice in Colorado then go to school in colorado or go really high up the food chain. That and it were just the football team's reputation etc. then SEC schools would be mopping the floor in the rankings.