ATL's Law School Rankings

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
AllTheLawz
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:20 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby AllTheLawz » Thu May 02, 2013 11:14 am

los blancos wrote:
Kronk wrote:
DorianGray89 wrote:
Thats only one aspect of the rankings though...


I'd say "which school gets you a market-paying job?" should be a bigger aspect of the rankings, then. I don't care if both schools put 90% of their graduates into jobs if one school has 75% in 160K jobs and federal clerkships and the other has 60% 160K jobs and federal clerkships with another 15% in midlaw or other private work that they took because they couldn't get one of the other two.


I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy? I mean at a school like Duke is there anyone that gets a federal or high-level state clerkship that either doesn't have biglaw, couldn't have gotten it, or won't be getting it post-clerkship? Basically any federal clerkship is tougher to get than a market paying job.


Related question: when a school like Duke has 10% fed clerks + 50% big firm placement, do the two overlap, or are people who are going clerkship -> firm excluded from that 50% number?


Yes. Neither biglaw nor Fed Clerkships are as purely grade driven as TLS believes. In aggregate you need good grades. But on the individual level it isn't rare for someone with less than sterling grades to get a fed clerkship.

User avatar
JXander
Posts: 960
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:23 am

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby JXander » Thu May 02, 2013 11:52 am


User avatar
beepboopbeep
Posts: 1230
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby beepboopbeep » Thu May 02, 2013 12:07 pm


User avatar
scruffy556
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby scruffy556 » Thu May 02, 2013 12:25 pm

Elie Mystal wrote:
Doing a ranking like this, it’s not exactly comparing apples to oranges, but it’s certainly not comparing apples to apples either. It’s more like taking a bunch of different fruits, mashing them into a juice, and then figuring out which juice gives you the longest lasting boner. We’re changing the fundamental nature of a thing into something else and then comparing the effects.


wat

gnuwheels
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby gnuwheels » Thu May 02, 2013 12:26 pm

Another ranking puts Michigan near the bottom of the T14 and yet people still try and and justify its place in the T10 and argue against the fact that its not in decline.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28186
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Kronk » Thu May 02, 2013 12:45 pm

BigZuck wrote:So a Berkeley student wants school funded jobs taken out of the equation and for a stupid high cost of attendance to not be held against a school? I find this shocking.


You know that out of the top ten, Boalt in-state tuition is actually lower than Duke, CLS, NYU, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Penn, and only $167 more per year than UVa? You didn't!? I find this shocking! Insults aside I figure when most people look at rankings they're trying to decide the best school, not the best deal. Big boys can make their own financial decisions knowing how good each school is and then deciding how much that is worth to them.

I don't care where Cal is ranked, I didn't base my original decision on ranking and I don't believe any 0L should. But I do think a ranking should ideally form a good metric for measuring the worth of the degree. That is, how likely you are to get a job, and the desirability of that job.

BigZuck
Posts: 10873
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby BigZuck » Thu May 02, 2013 1:02 pm

Kronk wrote:
BigZuck wrote:So a Berkeley student wants school funded jobs taken out of the equation and for a stupid high cost of attendance to not be held against a school? I find this shocking.


You know that out of the top ten, Boalt in-state tuition is actually lower than Duke, CLS, NYU, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Penn, and only $167 more per year than UVa? You didn't!? I find this shocking! Insults aside I figure when most people look at rankings they're trying to decide the best school, not the best deal. Big boys can make their own financial decisions knowing how good each school is and then deciding how much that is worth to them.

I don't care where Cal is ranked, I didn't base my original decision on ranking and I don't believe any 0L should. But I do think a ranking should ideally form a good metric for measuring the worth of the degree. That is, how likely you are to get a job, and the desirability of that job.


I just wish MVP(B) bros would pull up their big boy pants and cover up their hurt little butts. They have such huge chips on their shoulders and get so defensive when discussing schools at their ranking and then the DCNG schools (except for maybe the Penn bros, they seem pretty chill). Anyway, maybe that's not you, (although you did mention the UVA thing).

So glad I'm not smart enough to go to an MVP(B) school, I won't ever have to be engaged in this white knightery.

User avatar
The Brainalist
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby The Brainalist » Thu May 02, 2013 1:07 pm

Kronk wrote:
BigZuck wrote:So a Berkeley student wants school funded jobs taken out of the equation and for a stupid high cost of attendance to not be held against a school? I find this shocking.


You know that out of the top ten, Boalt in-state tuition is actually lower than Duke, CLS, NYU, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Penn, and only $167 more per year than UVa? You didn't!? I find this shocking! Insults aside I figure when most people look at rankings they're trying to decide the best school, not the best deal. Big boys can make their own financial decisions knowing how good each school is and then deciding how much that is worth to them.

I don't care where Cal is ranked, I didn't base my original decision on ranking and I don't believe any 0L should. But I do think a ranking should ideally form a good metric for measuring the worth of the degree. That is, how likely you are to get a job, and the desirability of that job.


FYI, your entire first paragraph sounds like someone who is losing an argument and can't do it graciously.

And LOL at Berkeley's in-state tuition being something other than a slap-in-the-face to California residents.

(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28186
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Kronk » Thu May 02, 2013 1:14 pm

The Brainalist wrote:FYI, your entire first paragraph sounds like someone who is losing an argument and can't do it graciously.

And LOL at Berkeley's in-state tuition being something other than a slap-in-the-face to California residents.

(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)


Go to the lounge sometime. I have a feeling we could use someone like you in the politics thread.

If the in-state tuition here is a slap-in-the-face to CA residents, which I agree that it is, that doesn't change the fact that in-state tuition at UVa and Michigan are slaps in the faces to them as well. It's just the way things are these days, was my point, from private schools to public, and the "Berkeley has high tuition!" thing is pretty overblown when you consider the difference is only $167 over a full year. And idk about graciousness, I just figure if someone is being cunty to me, I'm allowed to madlib their cunty insult to be equally twatlike to them. Seems fair.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28186
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Kronk » Thu May 02, 2013 1:15 pm

BigZuck wrote:So glad I'm not smart enough to go to an MVP(B) school, I won't ever have to be engaged in this white knightery.


I mean, I was white knighting CLS. So you'll NEVER BE SAFE, Zuck, NEVER.

User avatar
The Brainalist
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby The Brainalist » Thu May 02, 2013 1:21 pm

Kronk wrote:
The Brainalist wrote:FYI, your entire first paragraph sounds like someone who is losing an argument and can't do it graciously.

And LOL at Berkeley's in-state tuition being something other than a slap-in-the-face to California residents.

(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)


Go to the lounge sometime. I have a feeling we could use someone like you in the politics thread.

If the in-state tuition here is a slap-in-the-face to CA residents, which I agree that it is, that doesn't change the fact that in-state tuition at UVa and Michigan are slaps in the faces to them as well. It's just the way things are these days, was my point, from private schools to public, and the "Berkeley has high tuition!" thing is pretty overblown when you consider the difference is only $167 over a full year. And idk about graciousness, I just figure if someone is being cunty to me, I'm allowed to madlib their cunty insult to be equally twatlike to them. Seems fair.


Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28186
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Kronk » Thu May 02, 2013 1:23 pm

The Brainalist wrote:Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.


Welcome to TLS.

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby los blancos » Thu May 02, 2013 1:23 pm

Elston Gunn wrote:
los blancos wrote:
Kronk wrote:
DorianGray89 wrote:
Thats only one aspect of the rankings though...


I'd say "which school gets you a market-paying job?" should be a bigger aspect of the rankings, then. I don't care if both schools put 90% of their graduates into jobs if one school has 75% in 160K jobs and federal clerkships and the other has 60% 160K jobs and federal clerkships with another 15% in midlaw or other private work that they took because they couldn't get one of the other two.


I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy? I mean at a school like Duke is there anyone that gets a federal or high-level state clerkship that either doesn't have biglaw, couldn't have gotten it, or won't be getting it post-clerkship? Basically any federal clerkship is tougher to get than a market paying job.


Related question: when a school like Duke has 10% fed clerks + 50% big firm placement, do the two overlap, or are people who are going clerkship -> firm excluded from that 50% number?

Big law percentage is based on NALP forms or NLJ250 reports, so it only counts the people actually starting as associates that year. So there shouldn't be any overlap.


Thanks, brother.

User avatar
The Brainalist
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby The Brainalist » Thu May 02, 2013 1:24 pm

Kronk wrote:
The Brainalist wrote:Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.


Welcome to TLS.


Race to the bottom.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28186
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Kronk » Thu May 02, 2013 1:27 pm

The Brainalist wrote:
Kronk wrote:
The Brainalist wrote:Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.


Welcome to TLS.


Race to the bottom.


I think you're winning, breh! "Don't lower yourself to their level" followed up by:

The Brainalist wrote:(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)


Can we end this shit now? Zuck has thick skin. He was chill with a little sarcasm going back and forth.

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby los blancos » Thu May 02, 2013 1:29 pm

AllTheLawz wrote:
los blancos wrote:
Kronk wrote:
DorianGray89 wrote:
Thats only one aspect of the rankings though...


I'd say "which school gets you a market-paying job?" should be a bigger aspect of the rankings, then. I don't care if both schools put 90% of their graduates into jobs if one school has 75% in 160K jobs and federal clerkships and the other has 60% 160K jobs and federal clerkships with another 15% in midlaw or other private work that they took because they couldn't get one of the other two.


I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy? I mean at a school like Duke is there anyone that gets a federal or high-level state clerkship that either doesn't have biglaw, couldn't have gotten it, or won't be getting it post-clerkship? Basically any federal clerkship is tougher to get than a market paying job.


Related question: when a school like Duke has 10% fed clerks + 50% big firm placement, do the two overlap, or are people who are going clerkship -> firm excluded from that 50% number?


Yes. Neither biglaw nor Fed Clerkships are as purely grade driven as TLS believes. In aggregate you need good grades. But on the individual level it isn't rare for someone with less than sterling grades to get a fed clerkship.


Right, but on average you still need significantly better grades to get a fed clerkship (even with a magistrate) than just "biglaw" - you're still competitive for biglaw in varying degrees at the median at most T14s. My impression is you've got a ≤ 15% shot at a federal clerkship, even in rural states.

I'm speculating that 90+% of those who get fed clerkships are in one of these three categories
-has biglaw and deferred
-doesn't want biglaw and could have had it if s/he wanted it
-will get biglaw post-clerkship

Does that sound right or am I totally off-base?

User avatar
The Brainalist
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby The Brainalist » Thu May 02, 2013 1:31 pm

Kronk wrote:
The Brainalist wrote:
Kronk wrote:
The Brainalist wrote:Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.


Welcome to TLS.


Race to the bottom.


I think you're winning, breh! "Don't lower yourself to their level" followed up by:

The Brainalist wrote:(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)





Can we end this shit now? Zuck has thick skin. He was chill with a little sarcasm going back and forth.


Nothing wrong with a lot of posts. I'm not sure why you would take it that way. If you do, that's on you, not me.

User avatar
Sheffield
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:07 am

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Sheffield » Thu May 02, 2013 1:32 pm

I especially like that there is a new prominent player in the LS rankings game.

Given time it could be an apples-to-apples comparison of the AFC when it rivaled the NFL (pick your sport, at some point they all probably had a second league to deal with). Actually, I do not know why this did not occur earlier.

Timing certainly seems right. USNWR has turned into a boring sequel of the “Groundhog Day” movie. Time to shake it up!
Last edited by Sheffield on Thu May 02, 2013 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BigZuck
Posts: 10873
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby BigZuck » Thu May 02, 2013 1:32 pm

The Brainalist wrote:
Kronk wrote:
The Brainalist wrote:Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.


Welcome to TLS.


Race to the bottom.


I would appreciate it if you treated the MVP(B) butt hurt with the high level of gravitas it deserves my bro.

User avatar
The Brainalist
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby The Brainalist » Thu May 02, 2013 1:35 pm

BigZuck wrote:
The Brainalist wrote:
Kronk wrote:
The Brainalist wrote:Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.


Welcome to TLS.


Race to the bottom.


I would appreciate it if you treated the MVP(B) butt hurt with the high level of gravitas it deserves my bro.


It was masterful, in its way.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Blessedassurance » Thu May 02, 2013 1:43 pm

los blancos wrote: I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy?


no. what do you think [most of the] clerks go on to do?

in fact, the entire infatuation with clerkships and litigation (outside ip) is baffling.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28186
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Kronk » Thu May 02, 2013 1:45 pm

Blessedassurance wrote:
los blancos wrote: I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy?


no. what do you think the clerks go on to do?


Get bonuses from the big law jobs they already had or get offered better big law positions that they would have previously. Definitely harder to get and more prestigious. Whether or not they are "better" is probably personal, but they're certainly seen that way.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Blessedassurance » Thu May 02, 2013 1:53 pm

Kronk wrote:
Blessedassurance wrote:
los blancos wrote: I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy?


no. what do you think the clerks go on to do?


Get bonuses from the big law jobs they already had or get offered better big law positions that they would have previously. Definitely harder to get and more prestigious. Whether or not they are "better" is probably personal, but they're certainly seen that way.


the bonuses are not really relevant. besides the fact that not all firms offer the bonus, even when they do, most come out worse off financially. if it leads to better biglaw, then biglaw > clerkship.

it's also entirely useless for transaction. it's just something law students like to salivate over due to their inherent need to unnecessarily strive.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28186
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby Kronk » Thu May 02, 2013 1:55 pm

Blessedassurance wrote:it's also entirely useless for transaction. it's just something law students like to salivate over due to their inherent need to unnecessarily strive.


Pretty much agree with this. My point is just that it is considered more prestigious. Certainly a striver's dream.

User avatar
The Brainalist
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: ATL's Law School Rankings

Postby The Brainalist » Thu May 02, 2013 1:56 pm

Blessedassurance wrote:
Kronk wrote:
Blessedassurance wrote:
no. what do you think the clerks go on to do?


Get bonuses from the big law jobs they already had or get offered better big law positions that they would have previously. Definitely harder to get and more prestigious. Whether or not they are "better" is probably personal, but they're certainly seen that way.


the bonuses are not really relevant. besides the fact that not all firms offer the bonus, even when they do, most come out worse off financially. if it leads to better biglaw, then biglaw > clerkship.

it's also entirely useless for transaction. it's just something law students like to salivate over due to their inherent need to unnecessarily strive.


I tend to agree. Clerking isn't a career, it's a resume' line. Clerks do the same stuff other people do, but with longer resumes, basically.

It isn't always an indicator of better job prospects. You'd be surprised the number of people who do clerkships because they get no-offered or bombed out of 2L interviews. Although it often gives another chance at getting those entry-level positions, I'm also not sure how much it helps beyond that because the top firms are still looking at grades and journal work. If you didn't meet the minimum standards before, a clerkship doesn't always fix it. Often it's correlated with acheivement, but doesn't necessarily cause it.

It may matter a lot more as experience for jobs that expect you to hit the ground running, though, like government or boutique firms. Those don't seem to be highly valued by ATL, however.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mintme, Rich29 and 12 guests