It should be top 18, not top 14 Forum

[danquayle]

Hiring managers all know T-14. They use "top 10 or 15 schools" as code to avoid sounding like they know, but I've seen them slip.

Anyway, look at my UN-employment ranking for 2011: over half unemployed or underemployed at USC, versus 30% at Mich and 25% at NU. That's what we call a drop-off.

Seriously, why wouldn't they just say T-14? What do they care?

They have to pretend it's not all a prestige whoring game.

Ok, so why say "top 10 or 15 schools" then? Isn't a requiring a top 10 school or top 15 inherently also about prestige whoring? Isn't asking for ANY "top" school prestige whoring? I don't see why asking for a t-14 school all of a sudden makes it prestige whoring, but asking for a t-10 school wouldn't be.

And do you really think law firms care about being perceived as prestige hungry? I think they're rather explicit about that.

In other words, I don't think law firms are being cutesy when saying things like top 15. Chances are there is some regional bias. So a firm in LA might include USC and UCLA in it's "top 15" but not Georgetown. To the extent partners do know about the T-14, I'm not convinced they see it as a stark "in/out" proposition.

But I'm not saying the term has no credibility... indeed I think the T-14 basically means the schools that are almost universally considered Elite regardless of geographical interests. But every firm/company is going to have geographic biases to factor in as well.

[SaintFond]

Hiring managers all know T-14. They use "top 10 or 15 schools" as code to avoid sounding like they know, but I've seen them slip.

Anyway, look at my UN-employment ranking for 2011: over half unemployed or underemployed at USC, versus 30% at Mich and 25% at NU. That's what we call a drop-off.

Seriously, why wouldn't they just say T-14? What do they care?

They have to pretend it's not all a prestige whoring game.

Ok, so why say "top 10 or 15 schools" then? Isn't a requiring a top 10 school or top 15 inherently also about prestige whoring? Isn't asking for ANY "top" school prestige whoring? I don't see why asking for a t-14 school all of a sudden makes it prestige whoring, but asking for a t-10 school wouldn't be.

And do you really think law firms care about being perceived as prestige hungry? I think they're rather explicit about that.

When the vast majority of people think in terms of rankings, they always do it in increments of 5 or 10. That is, T5, T10, T15, T20, etc. As somebody above pointed out, this is essentially arbitrary and is really based upon nothing more than our irrational preference for the number 10.

With law school, the tiers are different and are not arbitrary, or at least they are not quite so arbitrary. You have T3, T6, T14, T18 etc. Only once you get past T18 do you find yourself falling into the old 5-10 ranking scheme. The inference here would be that past the top 18 or so schools, there is something of a drop off in quality because nobody bothers to put them in unique (non 5 or 10) sub tiers.

As far as the T14 go, I think of them as the sort of old boys, elite aristocratic club of schools. It's not so much that T18 schools aren't good, it's just that they aren't part of this special "club." T14 are the nobility and T18 are the bourgeoisie, if that makes sense. But to return to the point, if a recruiter talks about T15 and then inadvertently slips and refers to T14, you can be sure that he knows or at least believes that the T14 schools form some kind of special group unto themselves, and a resume with a T14 school will be evaluated differently than one with a T18.

[danquayle]

Ok, so why say "top 10 or 15 schools" then? Isn't a requiring a top 10 school or top 15 inherently also about prestige whoring? Isn't asking for ANY "top" school prestige whoring? I don't see why asking for a t-14 school all of a sudden makes it prestige whoring, but asking for a t-10 school wouldn't be.

And do you really think law firms care about being perceived as prestige hungry? I think they're rather explicit about that.

When the vast majority of people think in terms of rankings, they always do it in increments of 5 or 10. That is, T5, T10, T15, T20, etc. As somebody above pointed out, this is essentially arbitrary and is really based upon nothing more than our irrational preference for the number 10.

With law school, the tiers are different and are not arbitrary, or at least they are not quite so arbitrary. You have T3, T6, T14, T18 etc. Only once you get past T18 do you find yourself falling into the old 5-10 ranking scheme. The inference here would be that past the top 18 or so schools, there is something of a drop off in quality because nobody bothers to put them in unique (non 5 or 10) sub tiers.

As far as the T14 go, I think of them as the sort of old boys, elite aristocratic club of schools. It's not so much that T18 schools aren't good, it's just that they aren't part of this special "club." T14 are the nobility and T18 are the bourgeoisie, if that makes sense. But to return to the point, if a recruiter talks about T15 and then inadvertently slips and refers to T14, you can be sure that he knows or at least believes that the T14 schools form some kind of special group unto themselves, and a resume with a T14 school will be evaluated differently than one with a T18.

Again, I'm not disputing the validity of the "T-14" term; I'm disputing that any law firm recruiters would care to "hide" their knowledge of the term.

I'm also suggesting that regional preferences still have sway in this range, such that could easily see a "T-18" school being viewed more favorably than a "T-14" school. I know I've had the debate over and over again about Texas easily being a stronger bet in Texas than Cornell. I think anyone would be crazy to suggest otherwise.

This is not to discredit the T-14 and Cornell's place in it, but simply to assert that the T-14 are not universally superior in EVERY situation - just most situations.

I think this principle extends beyond the T-14. So could I envision a West Coast firm including Hastings in its top 25, but not Fordham? Sure. Would I be surprised to see a DC firm include George Washington but not Minnesota, not at all.

What might be the fairest thing to say is that the T-14 are the only "National" schools with significant, though not determinative, coast to coast appeal.

[lisjjen]

TBF, T18 does exist (in the minds of anyone at UT/Vandy/UCLA/USC).

Ive heard T25, T30, T40.... its just a way rationalizing one's own decision to attend a certain a range of school.

In my mind, its all about that T20, brah. Shit drops off dramatically after that

You're right, we don't sit around jerking each other off with this "T18" bullshit. Half the people I talk to got into a top 10 but are here because they got a great scholarship and Austin is one of the top 5 coolest cities in the country, or maybe that's just my situation.

I have heard the part about it dropping off sharply after the Top20 or there abouts from a lot of lawyers who attended everywhere. But yeah, I don't think anyone is surprised to see a USC or Vanderbilt attorney swing the kind of weight that a Penn or Columbia attorney can swing.

Long story short, the further you get from being a 0L, the less people care about the "T14."

[dingbat]

Part of why there's nothing that stand out past T18 is that the rankings stop correlating with the employment stats there and you get the occasional school slipping in (or out) that really shouldn't (Arizona)
Top 30 is a very competitive spot to be, from a law scho rankings perspective - not quite elite, not quite average. Schools like WUSTL, BU and BC are good are a cut above he rest, but then you might get ASU sneaking in there.