Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
lawschooltiers

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:01 pm

Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby lawschooltiers » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:04 pm

Hello Everyone,

I made a Tiered ranking of law schools based on the top 50 schools from USNWR. I tried to control for location and employment outcomes, in order to better help guide my negotiations of scholarships between peer schools.

Does this look about right? Any changes you would make?

1. Yale, Stanford, Harvard
2. Columbia, Chicago, NYU
3. Penn, Virginia, Berkeley, Michigan
4. Duke, Northwestern, Cornell
5. Georgetown, Texas, Vanderbilt
6. UCLA, USC
7. WashU, Notre Dame, Emory
8. BU, BC, GW, (Fordham)
9. Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana
10. UCI, UCD, ASU, Washington
11. W&M, Alabama, Georgia, UNC
12. OSU, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland
13. BYU, Arizona, Colorado, Utah
14. Wake Forest, W&L, GMU
15. SMU, Florida, Florida State

User avatar
poptart123

Silver
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:31 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby poptart123 » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:13 pm

Why the () around Fordham?

User avatar
kalvano

Diamond
Posts: 11952
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby kalvano » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:15 pm

This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.

User avatar
waldorf

Gold
Posts: 2376
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:28 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby waldorf » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:17 pm

kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


This.

Also, FWIW, Illinois is underrated. They're still a great school if you want to work in Chicago, but dropped in the rankings due to a scandal with their Dean a few years back. (Source: uncle is a BL hiring partner in Chicago).

User avatar
poptart123

Silver
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:31 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby poptart123 » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:18 pm

Why would you list SMU and not UH next to it? That is probably its most peer school.

User avatar
Thomas Hagan, ESQ.

Silver
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Thomas Hagan, ESQ. » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:19 pm

kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


True, but I think OP was doing this in reference to scholarship negotiations.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:21 pm

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


True, but I think OP was doing this in reference to scholarship negotiations.


What makes people think that schools that compete in completely different markets are going to negotiate? Is that a thing? Forgive me if I'm wrong - I just am surprised (?) to hear that OSU would negotiate with a scholarship from UNC since they service two completely different areas.

I guess none of this really matters to me since I'm looking at only Vandy and higher for school, but I'm curious about the negotiations lower down the ladder.

User avatar
Thomas Hagan, ESQ.

Silver
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Thomas Hagan, ESQ. » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:23 pm

mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


True, but I think OP was doing this in reference to scholarship negotiations.


What makes people think that schools that compete in completely different markets are going to negotiate? Is that a thing? Forgive me if I'm wrong - I just am surprised (?) to hear that OSU would negotiate with a scholarship from UNC since they service two completely different areas


I'm not sure why geography would matter when they're basically trying to yield protect. If I went to GW and said "Hey, I'm from Cali and UCLA gave me a full ride and your 15k a year is kind of ridiculous.." I'm sure GW will at least entertain the thought of giving you more.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:26 pm

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


True, but I think OP was doing this in reference to scholarship negotiations.


What makes people think that schools that compete in completely different markets are going to negotiate? Is that a thing? Forgive me if I'm wrong - I just am surprised (?) to hear that OSU would negotiate with a scholarship from UNC since they service two completely different areas


I'm not sure why geography would matter when they're basically trying to yield protect. If I went to GW and said "Hey, I'm from Cali and UCLA gave me a full ride and your 15k a year is kind of ridiculous.." I'm sure GW will at least entertain the thought of giving you more.


Ah, so your assessment is operating under the assumption that the applicant LSAT score is at or above median for all negotiation schools. That would make more sense.

I think I was looking at it more broadly, in the case where you have an LSAT 1 or 2 below median, but possibly a GPA above median - in that case, I don't see why regional schools would care what you got from other regionals - if you aren't going to help their LSAT median, they probably are happy with whatever they offered you.

Edit: wait, do you mean yield protect or median protect? Once they've already made you the offer, you're admitted regardless. Is yield that much of a big deal in ranking determination? I would have thought medians were more important.
Last edited by Future Ex-Engineer on Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

lawschooltiers

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby lawschooltiers » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:26 pm

kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


Did you not read the post? The whole point of this list is that it compares group schools based on their geographic location. The numeric ranking of the tiers is mostly for organization's sake and maybe slightly to indicate the general preference on the desirability of some of these regions.

lawschooltiers

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby lawschooltiers » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:28 pm

poptart123 wrote:Why the () around Fordham?


Because I feel that it is similar in employment outcomes/city location but the large difference in ranking game me pause.

lawschooltiers

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby lawschooltiers » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:28 pm

poptart123 wrote:Why would you list SMU and not UH next to it? That is probably its most peer school.


I just did the schools that were on the first two pages of the USNWR ranking

User avatar
poptart123

Silver
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:31 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby poptart123 » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:31 pm

lawschooltiers wrote:
poptart123 wrote:Why would you list SMU and not UH next to it? That is probably its most peer school.


I just did the schools that were on the first two pages of the USNWR ranking


I see. I think there are like 2-3 more on the 3rd page tied for #50 fwiw.

lawschooltiers

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby lawschooltiers » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:33 pm

mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


True, but I think OP was doing this in reference to scholarship negotiations.


What makes people think that schools that compete in completely different markets are going to negotiate? Is that a thing? Forgive me if I'm wrong - I just am surprised (?) to hear that OSU would negotiate with a scholarship from UNC since they service two completely different areas.

I guess none of this really matters to me since I'm looking at only Vandy and higher for school, but I'm curious about the negotiations lower down the ladder.


They don't which is why I made the tier to try and figure which schools within their 'geographic tier' would be likely to negotiate with each other.

Sorry if the list is confusing. But for schools between 6/7 and 15 it is not meant to indicate that the schools in each tier would always negotiate with schools in the tier above them, but more that they would be more likely to view the schools in their tier as schools they compete with.

User avatar
Thomas Hagan, ESQ.

Silver
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Thomas Hagan, ESQ. » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:35 pm

mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


True, but I think OP was doing this in reference to scholarship negotiations.


What makes people think that schools that compete in completely different markets are going to negotiate? Is that a thing? Forgive me if I'm wrong - I just am surprised (?) to hear that OSU would negotiate with a scholarship from UNC since they service two completely different areas


I'm not sure why geography would matter when they're basically trying to yield protect. If I went to GW and said "Hey, I'm from Cali and UCLA gave me a full ride and your 15k a year is kind of ridiculous.." I'm sure GW will at least entertain the thought of giving you more.


Ah, so your assessment is operating under the assumption that the applicant LSAT score is at or above median for all negotiation schools. That would make more sense.

I think I was looking at it more broadly, in the case where you have an LSAT 1 or 2 below median, but possibly a GPA above median - in that case, I don't see why regional schools would care what you got from other regionals - if you aren't going to help their LSAT median, they probably are happy with whatever they offered you.

Edit: wait, do you mean yield protect or median protect? Once they've already made you the offer, you're admitted regardless. Is yield that much of a big deal in ranking determination? I would have thought medians were more important.


What you're saying makes sense but I kind of think that schools already took how your numbers will impact their medians into consideration already when they admitted you. It's not like they admit someone thinking "shoot I hope this person doesn't come here because his lsat will bring down our median." I think after accepting someone, they care mostly about whether or not that person chooses to attend.

I think Yield Protect definitely is a large enough factor or else there wouldn't be so many people that have above both 75ths getting waitlisted. If YP didnt exist, then I'm sure the waitlist would never have anyone at or above medians, which is not the case.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:39 pm

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


True, but I think OP was doing this in reference to scholarship negotiations.


What makes people think that schools that compete in completely different markets are going to negotiate? Is that a thing? Forgive me if I'm wrong - I just am surprised (?) to hear that OSU would negotiate with a scholarship from UNC since they service two completely different areas


I'm not sure why geography would matter when they're basically trying to yield protect. If I went to GW and said "Hey, I'm from Cali and UCLA gave me a full ride and your 15k a year is kind of ridiculous.." I'm sure GW will at least entertain the thought of giving you more.


Ah, so your assessment is operating under the assumption that the applicant LSAT score is at or above median for all negotiation schools. That would make more sense.

I think I was looking at it more broadly, in the case where you have an LSAT 1 or 2 below median, but possibly a GPA above median - in that case, I don't see why regional schools would care what you got from other regionals - if you aren't going to help their LSAT median, they probably are happy with whatever they offered you.

Edit: wait, do you mean yield protect or median protect? Once they've already made you the offer, you're admitted regardless. Is yield that much of a big deal in ranking determination? I would have thought medians were more important.


What you're saying makes sense but I kind of think that schools already took how your numbers will impact their medians into consideration already when they admitted you. It's not like they admit someone thinking "shoot I hope this person doesn't come here because his lsat will bring down our median." I think after accepting someone, they care mostly about whether or not that person chooses to attend.

I think Yield Protect definitely is a large enough factor or else there wouldn't be so many people that have above both 75ths getting waitlisted. If YP didnt exist, then I'm sure the waitlist would never have anyone at or above medians, which is not the case.


I can see your point on Yield Protect, but I guess I've always thought the reason they waitlist/ding people above 75ths is that they *know* that person is going to get a better offer from somewhere better ranked, and they do a cost analysis and realize that for every 1 75th/75th they could entice to come, they could get a better value (rankings-wise) offering that same amount to lower-scoring individuals.

I think we're probably arguing two sides of the same coin here. Always interesting to see how other people think

User avatar
Thomas Hagan, ESQ.

Silver
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Thomas Hagan, ESQ. » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:43 pm

mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
kalvano wrote:This is silly. Outside of the top schools, they aren't really comparable simply due to rank - it has far more to do with location and career goals. For instance, if you want to work in Dallas and aren't going to T14/UT, Iowa or OSU is a horrible choice, yet you have them tiered well above SMU, which is the correct choice.


True, but I think OP was doing this in reference to scholarship negotiations.


What makes people think that schools that compete in completely different markets are going to negotiate? Is that a thing? Forgive me if I'm wrong - I just am surprised (?) to hear that OSU would negotiate with a scholarship from UNC since they service two completely different areas


I'm not sure why geography would matter when they're basically trying to yield protect. If I went to GW and said "Hey, I'm from Cali and UCLA gave me a full ride and your 15k a year is kind of ridiculous.." I'm sure GW will at least entertain the thought of giving you more.


Ah, so your assessment is operating under the assumption that the applicant LSAT score is at or above median for all negotiation schools. That would make more sense.

I think I was looking at it more broadly, in the case where you have an LSAT 1 or 2 below median, but possibly a GPA above median - in that case, I don't see why regional schools would care what you got from other regionals - if you aren't going to help their LSAT median, they probably are happy with whatever they offered you.

Edit: wait, do you mean yield protect or median protect? Once they've already made you the offer, you're admitted regardless. Is yield that much of a big deal in ranking determination? I would have thought medians were more important.


What you're saying makes sense but I kind of think that schools already took how your numbers will impact their medians into consideration already when they admitted you. It's not like they admit someone thinking "shoot I hope this person doesn't come here because his lsat will bring down our median." I think after accepting someone, they care mostly about whether or not that person chooses to attend.

I think Yield Protect definitely is a large enough factor or else there wouldn't be so many people that have above both 75ths getting waitlisted. If YP didnt exist, then I'm sure the waitlist would never have anyone at or above medians, which is not the case.


I can see your point on Yield Protect, but I guess I've always thought the reason they waitlist/ding people above 75ths is that they *know* that person is going to get a better offer from somewhere better ranked, and they do a cost analysis and realize that for every 1 75th/75th they could entice to come, they could get a better value (rankings-wise) offering that same amount to lower-scoring individuals.

I think we're probably arguing two sides of the same coin here. Always interesting to see how other people think


Haha yeah I think we are!
I'm not sure about what you mean by "cost". What does it cost the schools to just admit the person above the 75ths other than yield protect risk? Do you mean that they would be much better off enticing someone at medians with a half scholarship over someone above 75ths with a full ride?

User avatar
AT9

Gold
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 6:00 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby AT9 » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:47 pm

lawschooltiers wrote:
1. Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, NYU, Penn, Virginia, Berkeley, Michigan, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell
2. Georgetown, Texas, Vanderbilt, UCLA, USC
3. WashU, Notre Dame, Emory, BU, BC, GW, (Fordham)
4. Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, UCI, UCD, ASU, Washington, W&M, Alabama, Georgia, UNC, OSU, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, BYU, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wake Forest, W&L, GMU, SMU, Florida, Florida State
5. (other decent flagship schools in smaller states--Kentucky, Nebraska, etc.)
6. (trash)


There isn't that much difference between the schools in your tiers. If you want to separate schools into tiers, it'd look more like the above. And even between tiers, your decision should be highly fact specific (where do you want to practice, what do you want to do, debt, etc.). There's no meaningful difference, besides location, between UCLA and Vandy, or Utah and Georgia.

User avatar
Future Ex-Engineer

Silver
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Future Ex-Engineer » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:51 pm

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
Haha yeah I think we are!
I'm not sure about what you mean by "cost". What does it cost the schools to just admit the person above the 75ths other than yield protect risk? Do you mean that they would be much better off enticing someone at medians with a half scholarship over someone above 75ths with a full ride?


Exactly that - I imagine they have statistics showing how much money they would have to offer someone above both 75ths to get them to matriculate, and they can compare that with the average it would take to get multiple others to matriculate at various score levels.

This is all a conjecture, but I would assume (based on my own persuasions) that they would have to offer far more money to the over 75ths person than they would have to offer to lower-scoring students. Essentially, I would see it as a diminishing returns issue, and I'm sure they've done the statistical analysis to optimize their return.

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn

Platinum
Posts: 9319
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:40 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby BlendedUnicorn » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:53 pm

If you're doing it for purposes of scholarship negotiations gtown isn't going to see non-t14 schools as peers. If you're not making it for that purpose the entire project is dumm

User avatar
Thomas Hagan, ESQ.

Silver
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Thomas Hagan, ESQ. » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:54 pm

mrgstephe wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
Haha yeah I think we are!
I'm not sure about what you mean by "cost". What does it cost the schools to just admit the person above the 75ths other than yield protect risk? Do you mean that they would be much better off enticing someone at medians with a half scholarship over someone above 75ths with a full ride?


Exactly that - I imagine they have statistics showing how much money they would have to offer someone above both 75ths to get them to matriculate, and they can compare that with the average it would take to get multiple others to matriculate at various score levels.

This is all a conjecture, but I would assume (based on my own persuasions) that they would have to offer far more money to the over 75ths person than they would have to offer to lower-scoring students. Essentially, I would see it as a diminishing returns issue, and I'm sure they've done the statistical analysis to optimize their return.


Ohh i see what you're saying. That's really interesting and I wish we could find out what the process is inside those offices haha

User avatar
Thomas Hagan, ESQ.

Silver
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Thomas Hagan, ESQ. » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:55 pm

HuntedUnicorn wrote:If you're doing it for purposes of scholarship negotiations gtown isn't going to see non-t14 schools as peers. If you're not making it for that purpose the entire project is dumm


Not entirely true. I've known a couple of instances where GULC negotiated due to significantly higher Vandy money

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn

Platinum
Posts: 9319
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:40 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby BlendedUnicorn » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:05 pm

Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
HuntedUnicorn wrote:If you're doing it for purposes of scholarship negotiations gtown isn't going to see non-t14 schools as peers. If you're not making it for that purpose the entire project is dumm


Not entirely true. I've known a couple of instances where GULC negotiated due to significantly higher Vandy money


Did they match/exceed the vandy offer though (implying they see them as a peer) or did they only bump their offer (implying they still believe hey offer a better product).

User avatar
Thomas Hagan, ESQ.

Silver
Posts: 1225
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:55 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby Thomas Hagan, ESQ. » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:09 pm

HuntedUnicorn wrote:
Thomas Hagan, ESQ. wrote:
HuntedUnicorn wrote:If you're doing it for purposes of scholarship negotiations gtown isn't going to see non-t14 schools as peers. If you're not making it for that purpose the entire project is dumm


Not entirely true. I've known a couple of instances where GULC negotiated due to significantly higher Vandy money


Did they match/exceed the vandy offer though (implying they see them as a peer) or did they only bump their offer (implying they still believe hey offer a better product).


Good point, I think they bumped their offer but didn't match.

lawschooltiers

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: Thoughts on tiered system of top 50 Law Schools

Postby lawschooltiers » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:11 pm

AT9 wrote:
lawschooltiers wrote:
1. Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, NYU, Penn, Virginia, Berkeley, Michigan, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell
2. Georgetown, Texas, Vanderbilt, UCLA, USC
3. WashU, Notre Dame, Emory, BU, BC, GW, (Fordham)
4. Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, UCI, UCD, ASU, Washington, W&M, Alabama, Georgia, UNC, OSU, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, BYU, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wake Forest, W&L, GMU, SMU, Florida, Florida State
5. (other decent flagship schools in smaller states--Kentucky, Nebraska, etc.)
6. (trash)


There isn't that much difference between the schools in your tiers. If you want to separate schools into tiers, it'd look more like the above. And even between tiers, your decision should be highly fact specific (where do you want to practice, what do you want to do, debt, etc.). There's no meaningful difference, besides location, between UCLA and Vandy, or Utah and Georgia.


HuntedUnicorn wrote:If you're doing it for purposes of scholarship negotiations gtown isn't going to see non-t14 schools as peers. If you're not making it for that purpose the entire project is dumm


Did y'all read the post, or do you just like shitposting?



Return to “Choosing a Law School�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests