Law school quality: product v. perception? Forum

[Rogah]

What factors make a law school a better preparer of good -- more knowledgeable and skilled -- lawyers?

I've been a prospective law school applicant, and hence law school evaluator, for less than a month. So on one hand, these are questions from a fresh point of view; on the other, they're from an ignoramus.

Obviously, some of the consensus evaluation or ranking of schools is self-reinforcing: a top school attracts good students and faculty, and a school with good students and faculty is regarded as a top school. And some of that evaluation or ranking derives from how the schools are perceived, which in turn is influenced by the consensus. E.g.,a factor in USNR rankings is peer respect.

But also, a school with a better faculty presumably graduates, on average, better lawyers. So the consensus is not all smoke and mirrors: some of the consensus reputation of a school reflects attributes that affect the aptitude of its graduates.

One of the schools on my short list is in the top 70s on USNR's ranking. I have seen some comments on this forum to the effect that graduates of this school can forget about federal clerkships or Biglaw jobs. (Neither of those is one of my ambitions.) Suppose -- somehow, magically -- federal judges and Biglaw partners were blinded to a job candidate's law school and knew only about the candidate's knowledge and skills. Would all or most of a top 70s school's graduates still be unqualified? What about a top-130s school's graduates?

Conversely, suppose the universe split in just such a way that a given student went to an average T14 school in one universe and an average T150 school in another. In what ways would the T14 graduate be a better lawyer than the T150 one, and what qualities of the school were responsible for those ways?

What attributes of a law school should a prospective student look at that are indicators of the value of the education the school provides without regard to the self-reinforcing aspects of the school's reputation and rankings?

Two possibilities that I see on various reports and school promotional publications are student-faculty ratio and number of volumes in the library. I'm assuming the former should have some weight and the latter should have very little. What other such information is available and useful?

Is this a sensible question? Are there any answers?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Pretty much any school provides you the opportunity to become as knowledgable/skilled as you can be when you graduate, which is mostly on the individual graduate (and you are going to have to learn how to practice on the job anyway). Higher-ranked schools surround you with higher-scoring students, many of whom have interesting pasts/accomplishments/are very smart, which many people feel is a benefit to their learning. Certainly higher-ranked (richer) schools have more resources for their students, which can help in the sense of providing more/varied clinics and maybe things like externship placement. But really you can get good classes and good education at every half-decent law school (for one thing, the academic job market is such that you are going to have professors with brilliant credentials at any school). The biggest difference between schools is job placement. You end up a more knowledgable/skilled lawyer by getting a job that allows you to build knowledge and skills.

(Also, for most people this question is really mooted by the fact that they're considering a range of schools that are very similar. If you're choosing from within the T14, you're getting the same quality of education at any of those schools [okay, pace HYSers, you may be special]. If you're looking at T30-50, you're getting the same quality education at any of those schools. T100-150, ditto. If for some weird reason you're considering both a T150 and a T14 - which is/should be rarely the case, but if you are - then maybe it's worth considering what your fellow students are going to be like and what different options each school has; but even then the difference in educational quality is going to be way down the list of important differences.)

[joeyc328]

The perception you are discussing is the incorrect perception. The perception that exists is by the clients and your firm needs to be able to advertise you.

A client would rather hear "My new associate who graduated from HYS will be helping me with this matter". Then my new associate who went to (Tier 2 School) who graduated in the top 30% of his class will be helping with this matter.:

[mjb447]

On the clerkship side, at least, I'm not sure that it's a perception that every single student from a lower-ranked school is 'unqualified.' (Some judges do seem to believe this, though, and as it's presently structured there's probably a general difference in student quality between T14 and T70 or T130 because of the self-reinforcement that you talked about.) I think it's more that there are hundreds of candidates from numerous schools who could do the job competently and very few spots to go around. The field has to get narrowed somehow - school quality or 'prestige' is one way to do it.

[cavalier1138]

This post seems to be making the erroneous assumption that all law students are equally intelligent and capable of being good lawyers.

The fact is that not everyone is of equal intelligence. And while no one generally likes to spell it out specifically, the reason schools rely so heavily on LSAT/GPA is that those numbers are good indicators of the type of intelligence needed to analyze and argue points of law. It's not just an arbitrary criterion. So when you compare (as Nony mentioned, this is a pointless comparison) the average T14 student to the average third-tier student, the T14 student will simply be a better analytical and logical thinker. And before everyone jumps down my throat, I'm talking about averages, and I am not saying all third-tier students are idiots. Though I have no doubt someone's still going to take umbrage and rant about how tests don't measure anything, blah, blah, blah.

But it really doesn't have much to do with the quality of the faculty. Until you start scraping the bottom of the barrel, tenured faculty positions are hard to come by, so law school professors are all pretty damn qualified to be teaching. But as mentioned, even if you accept that top schools have better faculty, that doesn't mean they graduate better lawyers. The classroom experience is mainly about teaching you how to think about problems, but outside of Legal Writing, your classes don't do jack to teach you about the practice of law.

[Rogah]

This post seems to be making the erroneous assumption that all law students are equally intelligent and capable of being good lawyers.
...

Since I currently happen to be prepping the LR sections of the LSAT, this piqued my interest (as well as a defensive reaction): what, exactly, in my post is evidence of my making that assumption?

[lymenheimer]

I think once you get lower than 100 on the rankings, you can stop referring to it as a "top ###" school. If you're a top 149 out of 150, it doesn't really help.

[Rogah]

Pretty much any school provides you the opportunity to become as knowledgable/skilled as you can be when you graduate, which is mostly on the individual graduate (and you are going to have to learn how to practice on the job anyway). Higher-ranked schools surround you with higher-scoring students, many of whom have interesting pasts/accomplishments/are very smart, which many people feel is a benefit to their learning. Certainly higher-ranked (richer) schools have more resources for their students, which can help in the sense of providing more/varied clinics and maybe things like externship placement. But really you can get good classes and good education at every half-decent law school (for one thing, the academic job market is such that you are going to have professors with brilliant credentials at any school). The biggest difference between schools is job placement. You end up a more knowledgable/skilled lawyer by getting a job that allows you to build knowledge and skills.

OK; so we can add to my meager list: beneficial student population; more/varied clinics; externships. (While higher-scoring student populations are at least partially due to the self-reinforcing aspect of ratings and reputation, they do provide value independently.)

(Also, for most people this question is really mooted by the fact that they're considering a range of schools that are very similar. If you're choosing from within the T14, you're getting the same quality of education at any of those schools [okay, pace HYSers, you may be special]. If you're looking at T30-50, you're getting the same quality education at any of those schools. T100-150, ditto. If for some weird reason you're considering both a T150 and a T14 - which is/should be rarely the case, but if you are - then maybe it's worth considering what your fellow students are going to be like and what different options each school has; but even then the difference in educational quality is going to be way down the list of important differences.)

This appears to posit differences in educational quality between the ranking groups, but then minimizes the importance of those differences. What differences would be near the top of the list of important differences?

[Johann]

you can be a good lawyer despite your law school and can be a bad lawyer despite your law school too. go to the school that gives you the best chance of achieving your career goals and once you pick that school, put in the work you want to put in to be a great/good/fine/passable lawyer you want to be

[jdcumlaude]

The perception you are discussing is the incorrect perception. The perception that exists is by the clients and your firm needs to be able to advertise you.

A client would rather hear "My new associate who graduated from HYS will be helping me with this matter". Then my new associate who went to (Tier 2 School) who graduated in the top 30% of his class will be helping with this matter.:

This.....

[A. Nony Mouse]

The important differences between schools are employment statistics/placement (how well does the school place graduates in the kind of jobs you want?) and cost (and region as it intersects with employment stats). Somewhat prestige as has been alluded to above (but again I'd roll that into job placement.) Educational quality is very very low on the list because all schools provide the education you need to be a lawyer (whether you'll be a good one is largely about you, not your school). While you're going to get a different education at Yale than at Cooley, in practice, as I said, you're not going to be making that decision. You're not going to be choosing between schools with significantly different quality of education.

(Inb4 someone from H or Y talks about how their life has been ENRICHED beyond any of the other mere T14s by mingling with geniuses.)

[cavalier1138]

This post seems to be making the erroneous assumption that all law students are equally intelligent and capable of being good lawyers.
...

Since I currently happen to be prepping the LR sections of the LSAT, this piqued my interest (as well as a defensive reaction): what, exactly, in my post is evidence of my making that assumption?

Your assertion that better quality of education produces the better lawyers. The reality is that the students with more potential from the start produce better lawyers.

But it's not a specific point in your post. All of your questions hinge on whether or not it's merely a matter of perception that a T14 graduate is better equipped for a job in a prestigious field than a third-tier graduate. You even ask what the difference in aptitude would be for the same student going to either school. The issue is that, in general, there is no student who fits this hypothetical. But Nony already hit the key point:

The important differences between schools are employment statistics/placement (how well does the school place graduates in the kind of jobs you want?) and cost (and region as it intersects with employment stats). Somewhat prestige as has been alluded to above (but again I'd roll that into job placement.) Educational quality is very very low on the list because all schools provide the education you need to be a lawyer (whether you'll be a good one is largely about you, not your school). While you're going to get a different education at Yale than at Cooley, in practice, as I said, you're not going to be making that decision. You're not going to be choosing between schools with significantly different quality of education.

(Inb4 someone from H or Y talks about how their life has been ENRICHED beyond any of the other mere T14s by mingling with geniuses.)

[First Offense]

Not to derail too much on my lunch break, but aren't a lot of lower ranked schools essentially three-year bar review courses?

[Rogah]

Not to derail too much on my lunch break, but aren't a lot of lower ranked schools essentially three-year bar review courses?

What would be the differences of such a school from one that is otherwise?

Disclaimer: I have never set foot into a law school (hurry, this will change in a couple of weeks).

[First Offense]

Not to derail too much on my lunch break, but aren't a lot of lower ranked schools essentially three-year bar review courses?

What would be the differences of such a school from one that is otherwise?

Disclaimer: I have never set foot into a law school (hurry, this will change in a couple of weeks).

Well one would be little more than rote learning, the other would be more of an intellectual pursuit, as it were. Not that one is inherently superior to the other, and personally I found a lot of the "intellectual" discussion annoying (probably more because of the other students than the discussion itself).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, the bar tests black-letter law on a very defined range of subjects. Law school courses cover a lot of non-bar tested stuff and can be a lot more about how/why/should law be like this, than about "this is what jurisdiction x says the law means." And of course if you take a clinic or seminar you're not getting drilled in the kind of black letter law on the bar.