Top Law Schools

How exactly do the schools ranked 15-20ish match up to the T14? I know that University Texas-Austin, UCLA, Vanderbilt are occasionally thrown it to conversation as top law schools, whereas some of the others that fluctuate in the high teens/low are merely great regional schools in a different league.

What exactly is the criteria? Employment, Placement, Medium Income, Mobility, a combo the factors mentioned as well as others, etc. It's pretty hard to get the full story just based on the rankings, which surely are not static. The differences between the schools mentioned above and others a few steps down the rankings do not seem to be best captured by the small differential in relative rankings.

SunDevil14 wrote:How exactly do the schools ranked 15-20ish match up to the T14? I know that University Texas-Austin, UCLA, Vanderbilt are occasionally thrown it to conversation as top law schools, whereas some of the others that fluctuate in the high teens/low are merely great regional schools in a different league.

What exactly is the criteria? Employment, Placement, Medium Income, Mobility, a combo the factors mentioned as well as others, etc. It's pretty hard to get the full story just based on the rankings, which surely are not static. The differences between the schools mentioned above and others a few steps down the rankings do not seem to be best captured by the small differential in relative rankings.

The value really just depends.

UT Austin, UCLA, Vanderbilt, and even WUSTL can be great options if you get a significant scholarship and minimize debt.

It also depends on how well you do in the class. For example, paying sticker to attend Vanderbilt and finishing 1L year at median is a pretty risky place to be in. But if you land a significant scholarship, finish in the top quarter or higher in the class, and get your desired employment outcome (whether it's biglaw, clerkship, etc.) then I can't think of a better option.

So it just depends man. It depends on your financial situation, where you finish in the class, your personal goals, and your geographic region of preference.

If you want to practice in Southern California, then UCLA on a hefty scholarship is probably a better bet than Georgetown on a half-scholarship. These kind of trade offs just depend on a person-by-person basis and what that person values and wants out of the legal profession.

SunDevil14 wrote:How exactly do the schools ranked 15-20ish match up to the T14? I know that University Texas-Austin, UCLA, Vanderbilt are occasionally thrown it to conversation as top law schools, whereas some of the others that fluctuate in the high teens/low are merely great regional schools in a different league.

What exactly is the criteria? Employment, Placement, Medium Income, Mobility, a combo the factors mentioned as well as others, etc. It's pretty hard to get the full story just based on the rankings, which surely are not static. The differences between the schools mentioned above and others a few steps down the rankings do not seem to be best captured by the small differential in relative rankings.

The schools ~15-20 vary massively in employment outcomes. UT placed 40% into biglaw + fed clerks in the most recent year (almost all in texas). Vanderbilt placed 45% (almost all in TX+ random southern cities). UCLA placed ~45%, almost all in Southern California. USC had a 37% rate, all almost all in Southern California as well. These are all strong regional schools, but as you can see the common factor is that they all place at a solid rate in their home area. They don't have almost any national reach, no one from USC/UCLA or TX or Vandy will ever get hired by Wachtell or Cravath, the same is not true for GULC (even though hiring from lower t-14's does not happen much these days.) After these four, the placement drops off fast. WUSTL placed 33%, BU placed 35% (almost exclusively in BOS+NY). Emory had a sub-30 rating. Minnesota had ~24. So, only ~6 schools can be called strong regionals, charitably at that. Note that these figures are all from last year, when legal hiring had substantially recovered from the financial crisis. You don't want to know what the numbers looked like during the recession. For comparisons sake, GULC only placed ~45% last year, but that placement spread across the country. None of these schools can be considered elite in any sense of the word. UCLA/USC/TX/Vandy are definitely strong regionals, the rest are varying degrees of trash (assuming you don't have idiosyncratic desires).

curry1 wrote:

SunDevil14 wrote:How exactly do the schools ranked 15-20ish match up to the T14? I know that University Texas-Austin, UCLA, Vanderbilt are occasionally thrown it to conversation as top law schools, whereas some of the others that fluctuate in the high teens/low are merely great regional schools in a different league.

What exactly is the criteria? Employment, Placement, Medium Income, Mobility, a combo the factors mentioned as well as others, etc. It's pretty hard to get the full story just based on the rankings, which surely are not static. The differences between the schools mentioned above and others a few steps down the rankings do not seem to be best captured by the small differential in relative rankings.

The schools ~15-20 vary massively in employment outcomes. UT placed 40% into biglaw + fed clerks in the most recent year (almost all in texas). Vanderbilt placed 45% (almost all in TX+ random southern cities). UCLA placed ~45%, almost all in Southern California. USC had a 37% rate, all almost all in Southern California as well. These are all strong regional schools, but as you can see the common factor is that they all place at a solid rate in their home area. They don't have almost any national reach, no one from USC/UCLA or TX or Vandy will ever get hired by Wachtell or Cravath, the same is not true for GULC (even though hiring from lower t-14's does not happen much these days.) After these four, the placement drops off fast. WUSTL placed 33%, BU placed 35% (almost exclusively in BOS+NY). Emory had a sub-30 rating. Minnesota had ~24. So, only ~6 schools can be called strong regionals, charitably at that. Note that these figures are all from last year, when legal hiring had substantially recovered from the financial crisis. You don't want to know what the numbers looked like during the recession. For comparisons sake, GULC only placed ~45% last year, but that placement spread across the country. None of these schools can be considered elite in any sense of the word. UCLA/USC/TX/Vandy are definitely strong regionals, the rest are varying degrees of trash (assuming you don't have idiosyncratic desires).

btw UT alone has 10 associates at Cravath atm

Big Red wrote:

curry1 wrote:

SunDevil14 wrote:How exactly do the schools ranked 15-20ish match up to the T14? I know that University Texas-Austin, UCLA, Vanderbilt are occasionally thrown it to conversation as top law schools, whereas some of the others that fluctuate in the high teens/low are merely great regional schools in a different league.

What exactly is the criteria? Employment, Placement, Medium Income, Mobility, a combo the factors mentioned as well as others, etc. It's pretty hard to get the full story just based on the rankings, which surely are not static. The differences between the schools mentioned above and others a few steps down the rankings do not seem to be best captured by the small differential in relative rankings.

The schools ~15-20 vary massively in employment outcomes. UT placed 40% into biglaw + fed clerks in the most recent year (almost all in texas). Vanderbilt placed 45% (almost all in TX+ random southern cities). UCLA placed ~45%, almost all in Southern California. USC had a 37% rate, all almost all in Southern California as well. These are all strong regional schools, but as you can see the common factor is that they all place at a solid rate in their home area. They don't have almost any national reach, no one from USC/UCLA or TX or Vandy will ever get hired by Wachtell or Cravath, the same is not true for GULC (even though hiring from lower t-14's does not happen much these days.) After these four, the placement drops off fast. WUSTL placed 33%, BU placed 35% (almost exclusively in BOS+NY). Emory had a sub-30 rating. Minnesota had ~24. So, only ~6 schools can be called strong regionals, charitably at that. Note that these figures are all from last year, when legal hiring had substantially recovered from the financial crisis. You don't want to know what the numbers looked like during the recession. For comparisons sake, GULC only placed ~45% last year, but that placement spread across the country. None of these schools can be considered elite in any sense of the word. UCLA/USC/TX/Vandy are definitely strong regionals, the rest are varying degrees of trash (assuming you don't have idiosyncratic desires).

btw UT alone has 10 associates at Cravath atm

Fine, I'll walk back my statement that Cravath is elite. I guess the only non TTT firm in NYC is Wachtell, ~90/110 associates went to HYSCCN and Penn.

You're going to resurrect TLS's reputation as elitist.

curry1 wrote:even though hiring from lower t-14's does not happen much these days

Someone better let Northwestern know they're doing it wrong

They have no value. That's why when I went to a then-unranked school, the world fell apart.

If you're goal is big law in the NE, of course ranking matters.

That said, I feel like I need to chime in and defend some of the other schools. You can make awesome money and be extremely successful going to a mid-range school. I've worked at a prestigious regional law firm for the past 5 years and only 2 attorneys went to T14. The others all went to mid and even low level schools (I don't recommend going anywhere 100+, but it is nice to see some of them still be successful). Anyways, the attorneys are making 250-400k and are very well known for their quality work.

Though being T14 gives you a huge step up, much of your success is what you do with it and the connections you make in law school and post-law school.

So.... I think being just outside T14 is perfectly fine, particularly for those who don't have their heart set on NE big law. Plus, many of the regional schools are going to be able to offer you much more in terms of networking if you want to stay in that area. Eg. If you want to work in Oregon or Colorado, I think it's smart to go to an Oregon or Colorado school. Sure, T14 will give you a bump in those areas, but they won't overrule good networking throughout and right after school.

If it was between paying full tuition for a T10 or getting 50-70% scholarship for a T15-20, I'd take the 15-20. Of course that's a personal opinion, but I have no desire to work at cut throat big law.

SolRs wrote:If you're goal is big law in the NE, of course ranking matters.

That said, I feel like I need to chime in and defend some of the other schools. You can make awesome money and be extremely successful going to a mid-range school. I've worked at a prestigious regional law firm for the past 5 years and only 2 attorneys went to T14. The others all went to mid and even low level schools (I don't recommend going anywhere 100+, but it is nice to see some of them still be successful). Anyways, the attorneys are making 250-400k and are very well known for their quality work.

Though being T14 gives you a huge step up, much of your success is what you do with it and the connections you make in law school and post-law school.

So.... I think being just outside T14 is perfectly fine, particularly for those who don't have their heart set on NE big law. Plus, many of the regional schools are going to be able to offer you much more in terms of networking if you want to stay in that area. Eg. If you want to work in Oregon or Colorado, I think it's smart to go to an Oregon or Colorado school. Sure, T14 will give you a bump in those areas, but they won't overrule good networking throughout and right after school.

If it was between paying full tuition for a T10 or getting 50-70% scholarship for a T15-20, I'd take the 15-20. Of course that's a personal opinion, but I have no desire to work at cut throat big law.

Thanks, what you and acr have described seems confirm the general vibe I was getting, which is essentially a large scholarship can outweigh smaller or no scholarships at T14 schools. Especially considering if you're ambitions are not solely big law, combined with the fact that you do well in your class, and have a desire to work in a particular region.

I also think that curry1 makes some great points, though he/she seems a bit harsh, but perhaps that is the prerogative of cutthroat NE big law. So the vibe I am getting is that if one is "big-law or bust," attending schools outside the T14 could significantly hurt your chances. Furthermore, large scholarship offers, and good performance in your class may not readily overcome the initial detriment of not attending a T14 school, let alone a T6 school.

Seems to sum it all up?

SolRs wrote:Eg. If you want to work in Oregon or Colorado, I think it's smart to go to an Oregon or Colorado school.

I would tend to question this for Oregon because the state has a really small legal market from what I've heard and none of the three law schools in Oregon have particularly good employment statistics. For the 2015 class they combined to place 8 people in big law and 2 in federal clerkships. Even assuming you don't want either of those things because you chose to go to an Oregon law school, you still have a decent chance of not getting a lawyer job at all. Not saying no one should go to these schools but for most it seems like a questionable decision.

SolRs wrote: If it was between paying full tuition for a T10 or getting 50-70% scholarship for a T15-20, I'd take the 15-20. Of course that's a personal opinion, but I have no desire to work at cut throat big law.

Even a 50% tuition scholarship can still put you $150k+ in debt. At that point, the only way to pay it off is a high paying big law job or a public interest job loan forgiveness job, and you definitely cannot count on landing the former.

acr wrote: So it just depends man. It depends on your financial situation, where you finish in the class, your personal goals, and your geographic region of preference.

If you want to practice in Southern California, then UCLA on a hefty scholarship is probably a better bet than Georgetown on a half-scholarship. These kind of trade offs just depend on a person-by-person basis and what that person values and wants out of the legal profession.

I attended UT on a pretty decent scholarship. I also had acceptances from Cornell and Georgetown, although with minimal scholarships from both. I have never regretted my decision and would encourage many others to do the same.

Cost was certainly a factor. $160k+ debt was scary for me. I also knew that while I was very hopeful on getting biglaw, I was not open to the NYC biglaw lifestyle at all. I was not from Texas, but I felt I could enjoy my life in the state more so than other areas.

I ended up slightly above median at UT and I got Texas biglaw. I knew several others in my class with similar ranking who got biglaw. Obviously anecdotal, but at least when I graduated, median certainly put you in the running for some biglaw, but it was a tossup. If you got lucky, you usually only had 1 ,maybe 2, offers, vs people in the top 1/3 or 1/4 having several to choose from.

This choice was right for me. I love living in Texas, I am content in my job, my debt load is manageable, and my cost of living is low. I would have had to work much harder at Cornell or Georgetown to be in the position I am now.

I can also completely understand someone who would have went to the lower T-14. Some people love living in NYC, some people love DC, some people don't know where they want to go, and those other schools would have been a better environment for people like that.

The whole takeaway from a post like this is "T-14" or US News or really any ranking list is a lazy way of figuring out which law school is good for you. Kids need to look for themselves at employment scores, ABA disclosures, employment locations, etc. with a meaningful level of detail. Kids need to do some introspection on where they want to live and the lifestyle they are comfortable with.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're going to resurrect TLS's reputation as elitist.

Isn't that curry guy a 1L or 0L? I think that would explain his fairly limited POV.

favabeansoup wrote:

acr wrote: So it just depends man. It depends on your financial situation, where you finish in the class, your personal goals, and your geographic region of preference.

If you want to practice in Southern California, then UCLA on a hefty scholarship is probably a better bet than Georgetown on a half-scholarship. These kind of trade offs just depend on a person-by-person basis and what that person values and wants out of the legal profession.

I attended UT on a pretty decent scholarship. I also had acceptances from Cornell and Georgetown, although with minimal scholarships from both. I have never regretted my decision and would encourage many others to do the same.

Cost was certainly a factor. $160k+ debt was scary for me. I also knew that while I was very hopeful on getting biglaw, I was not open to the NYC biglaw lifestyle at all. I was not from Texas, but I felt I could enjoy my life in the state more so than other areas.

I ended up slightly above median at UT and I got Texas biglaw. I knew several others in my class with similar ranking who got biglaw. Obviously anecdotal, but at least when I graduated, median certainly put you in the running for some biglaw, but it was a tossup. If you got lucky, you usually only had 1 ,maybe 2, offers, vs people in the top 1/3 or 1/4 having several to choose from.

This choice was right for me. I love living in Texas, I am content in my job, my debt load is manageable, and my cost of living is low. I would have had to work much harder at Cornell or Georgetown to be in the position I am now.

I can also completely understand someone who would have went to the lower T-14. Some people love living in NYC, some people love DC, some people don't know where they want to go, and those other schools would have been a better environment for people like that.

The whole takeaway from a post like this is "T-14" or US News or really any ranking list is a lazy way of figuring out which law school is good for you. Kids need to look for themselves at employment scores, ABA disclosures, employment locations, etc. with a meaningful level of detail. Kids need to do some introspection on where they want to live and the lifestyle they are comfortable with.

Would you recommend UT over Duke and UVA?

SunDevil14 wrote:

SolRs wrote:If you're goal is big law in the NE, of course ranking matters.

That said, I feel like I need to chime in and defend some of the other schools. You can make awesome money and be extremely successful going to a mid-range school. I've worked at a prestigious regional law firm for the past 5 years and only 2 attorneys went to T14. The others all went to mid and even low level schools (I don't recommend going anywhere 100+, but it is nice to see some of them still be successful). Anyways, the attorneys are making 250-400k and are very well known for their quality work.

Though being T14 gives you a huge step up, much of your success is what you do with it and the connections you make in law school and post-law school.

So.... I think being just outside T14 is perfectly fine, particularly for those who don't have their heart set on NE big law. Plus, many of the regional schools are going to be able to offer you much more in terms of networking if you want to stay in that area. Eg. If you want to work in Oregon or Colorado, I think it's smart to go to an Oregon or Colorado school. Sure, T14 will give you a bump in those areas, but they won't overrule good networking throughout and right after school.

If it was between paying full tuition for a T10 or getting 50-70% scholarship for a T15-20, I'd take the 15-20. Of course that's a personal opinion, but I have no desire to work at cut throat big law.

Thanks, what you and acr have described seems confirm the general vibe I was getting, which is essentially a large scholarship can outweigh smaller or no scholarships at T14 schools. Especially considering if you're ambitions are not solely big law, combined with the fact that you do well in your class, and have a desire to work in a particular region.

I also think that curry1 makes some great points, though he/she seems a bit harsh, but perhaps that is the prerogative of cutthroat NE big law. So the vibe I am getting is that if one is "big-law or bust," attending schools outside the T14 could significantly hurt your chances. Furthermore, large scholarship offers, and good performance in your class may not readily overcome the initial detriment of not attending a T14 school, let alone a T6 school.

Seems to sum it all up?

Yup - a good summary of where I stand at least.

stego wrote:

SolRs wrote:Eg. If you want to work in Oregon or Colorado, I think it's smart to go to an Oregon or Colorado school.

I would tend to question this for Oregon because the state has a really small legal market from what I've heard and none of the three law schools in Oregon have particularly good employment statistics. For the 2015 class they combined to place 8 people in big law and 2 in federal clerkships. Even assuming you don't want either of those things because you chose to go to an Oregon law school, you still have a decent chance of not getting a lawyer job at all. Not saying no one should go to these schools but for most it seems like a questionable decision.

Good point. I may have spoken too soon on the Oregon schools. I was trying to throw out another example outside of Colorado (which I know does have decent stats for top of the class at schools in-state, particularly CU). I haven't spent much time looking at Oregon schools and stats.

I still stand by my opinion in that T15-50 schools are fine for those interested in staying more local and have good scholarship offers. Again, coming from the non-NE big law perspective.

I keep misreading the thread title as "vale (vaule) of Laws school," which seems oddly appropriate for a thread about non-t14 schools.

Non-T14er here to represent.

PrezRand wrote: Would you recommend UT over Duke and UVA?

Totally depends.

If you know you want to work in TX biglaw? I would lean Duke or UVA unless the scholarships levels were really off. As in if you had near full ride at UT but little money at Duke or UVA, I'd probably go UT. You need to be comfortable with the idea of living in Dallas or Houston though, as that is where 90% of the jobs are.

If you want to work in TX just generally without focus on biglaw? I'd lean UT. UT has fantastic connections within the state, and the amount of alumni loyalty in non biglaw hiring is certainly overlooked.

If you aren't 100% TX and are open to other markets? Duke or UVA hands down. TX sends its share of people to CA /NYC/DC biglaw each year, but you need to do very well to get that and there are many more opportunities in other markets at the other schools.

zot1 wrote:Non-T14er here to represent.

To be clear, I didn't go to a T14, and I had a great outcome.

My point stands though.

MarkinKansasCity wrote:

zot1 wrote:Non-T14er here to represent.

To be clear, I didn't go to a T14, and I had a great outcome.

My point stands though.

Oh totes.

favabeansoup wrote:

PrezRand wrote: Would you recommend UT over Duke and UVA?

Totally depends.

If you know you want to work in TX biglaw? I would lean Duke or UVA unless the scholarships levels were really off. As in if you had near full ride at UT but little money at Duke or UVA, I'd probably go UT. You need to be comfortable with the idea of living in Dallas or Houston though, as that is where 90% of the jobs are.

If you want to work in TX just generally without focus on biglaw? I'd lean UT. UT has fantastic connections within the state, and the amount of alumni loyalty in non biglaw hiring is certainly overlooked.

If you aren't 100% TX and are open to other markets? Duke or UVA hands down. TX sends its share of people to CA /NYC/DC biglaw each year, but you need to do very well to get that and there are many more opportunities in other markets at the other schools.

I'll go ahead and cosign this

SunDevil14 wrote:

SolRs wrote:If you're goal is big law in the NE, of course ranking matters.

That said, I feel like I need to chime in and defend some of the other schools. You can make awesome money and be extremely successful going to a mid-range school. I've worked at a prestigious regional law firm for the past 5 years and only 2 attorneys went to T14. The others all went to mid and even low level schools (I don't recommend going anywhere 100+, but it is nice to see some of them still be successful). Anyways, the attorneys are making 250-400k and are very well known for their quality work.

Though being T14 gives you a huge step up, much of your success is what you do with it and the connections you make in law school and post-law school.

So.... I think being just outside T14 is perfectly fine, particularly for those who don't have their heart set on NE big law. Plus, many of the regional schools are going to be able to offer you much more in terms of networking if you want to stay in that area. Eg. If you want to work in Oregon or Colorado, I think it's smart to go to an Oregon or Colorado school. Sure, T14 will give you a bump in those areas, but they won't overrule good networking throughout and right after school.

If it was between paying full tuition for a T10 or getting 50-70% scholarship for a T15-20, I'd take the 15-20. Of course that's a personal opinion, but I have no desire to work at cut throat big law.

Thanks, what you and acr have described seems confirm the general vibe I was getting, which is essentially a large scholarship can outweigh smaller or no scholarships at T14 schools. Especially considering if you're ambitions are not solely big law, combined with the fact that you do well in your class, and have a desire to work in a particular region.

I also think that curry1 makes some great points, though he/she seems a bit harsh, but perhaps that is the prerogative of cutthroat NE big law. So the vibe I am getting is that if one is "big-law or bust," attending schools outside the T14 could significantly hurt your chances. Furthermore, large scholarship offers, and good performance in your class may not readily overcome the initial detriment of not attending a T14 school, let alone a T6 school.

Seems to sum it all up?

curry is actually just an goober and should be ignored tbqh

Nebby wrote:

SunDevil14 wrote:

SolRs wrote:If you're goal is big law in the NE, of course ranking matters.

That said, I feel like I need to chime in and defend some of the other schools. You can make awesome money and be extremely successful going to a mid-range school. I've worked at a prestigious regional law firm for the past 5 years and only 2 attorneys went to T14. The others all went to mid and even low level schools (I don't recommend going anywhere 100+, but it is nice to see some of them still be successful). Anyways, the attorneys are making 250-400k and are very well known for their quality work.

Though being T14 gives you a huge step up, much of your success is what you do with it and the connections you make in law school and post-law school.

So.... I think being just outside T14 is perfectly fine, particularly for those who don't have their heart set on NE big law. Plus, many of the regional schools are going to be able to offer you much more in terms of networking if you want to stay in that area. Eg. If you want to work in Oregon or Colorado, I think it's smart to go to an Oregon or Colorado school. Sure, T14 will give you a bump in those areas, but they won't overrule good networking throughout and right after school.

If it was between paying full tuition for a T10 or getting 50-70% scholarship for a T15-20, I'd take the 15-20. Of course that's a personal opinion, but I have no desire to work at cut throat big law.

Thanks, what you and acr have described seems confirm the general vibe I was getting, which is essentially a large scholarship can outweigh smaller or no scholarships at T14 schools. Especially considering if you're ambitions are not solely big law, combined with the fact that you do well in your class, and have a desire to work in a particular region.

I also think that curry1 makes some great points, though he/she seems a bit harsh, but perhaps that is the prerogative of cutthroat NE big law. So the vibe I am getting is that if one is "big-law or bust," attending schools outside the T14 could significantly hurt your chances. Furthermore, large scholarship offers, and good performance in your class may not readily overcome the initial detriment of not attending a T14 school, let alone a T6 school.

Seems to sum it all up?

curry is actually just an goober and should be ignored tbqh

Lol TBH I think there is a good chance that he was in frat as an undergrad...