"A" is only true when looking at lsj 250 firms.
Blindmelon wrote:Biglaw isn't everything. But if you think it is, and the rankings went just by percentage in biglaw, Fordham and GW would rise a ton in the rankings. A) Also, GW/Fordham/BC/BU/UIUC/Emory/WUSTL/UT/Vand/UCLA/ND/WM all have almost double the biglaw placement as Tulane and its peer schools (American, RU, etc.), and some have more than triple.
These are all T30ish schools and place significantly better warranting their own little category. Yes, U Minnesota is 20 and it doesn't have a very high biglaw placement, but they feed mostly into their home state where biglaw isn't the only thing going and they are also a more selective school than those ranked higher. B) I agree it becomes more arbitrary the farther you go down the rankings, but to say that Tulane and Vand/BC/UIUC/GW, etc are in the same league is pretty silly.
When you concentrate on the top-100 firms, Tulane more than holds its own and blows most #20-50 schools off the map. And what do you know about Tulane that would make you such an expert that you can say Tulane is not in the same league as those other schools? The arbitrary nature of the rankings (which you mention at "B") is exactly what allows others to say the opposite.
And Tulane is a very well regarded university overall. UG was considered to be a top-30 or so just a few years ago.
What, besides the rankings that you have looked at, allows you to question the inherent qualities of the schools at all? The rankings have caused perception more than resulted from it. I would bet that if USNWR put Tulane at 25, you would see drastic increases in OCI, BigLaw placement, clerkships, citations and everything else related to prestige. The rankings are a game changer(s).
USNWR is biased towards the following:
Northeastern, as opposed to southern, western or midwestern
Urban, as opposed to rural
Private, as opposed to public