Texas is now T14 Forum

[DoubleChecks]

Berkeley places most of its grads in CA due to self selection. If those grads wanted NYC they would get them (assuming they had the grades). Berkeley is a national school, Texas is not. This is fact.

FTFY

refer to my above post -- Berk prob has better national placement, but it is also a higher ranked school (not to say i only want to go on rankings here, but at least as a proxy). I could say the same thing (at least pre-ITE, i really dont know ITE...one way or the other)..."Texas places most of its grads in TX due to self selection. If those grads wanted NYC they would get them (assuming they had the grades)...This is fact."

See the problem here is, what you crossed out is actually correct and what you didn't cross out is full of bullshit.

lol please feel free to bold any part that is not true. your statement was not 100% factually incorrect. in fact, most of it is true. just the whole statement was stupid to make.

[Curry]

Look at the firms that come to Texas OCI. Look at the firms that go to Berkeley OCI. Look at the top firms around the country and count the number of Berkeley associates/partners. Now do the same for Texas.

Berkeley doesn't have better placement because its a higher ranked school. Its a higher ranked school because it has better placement.

[Alex-Trof]

I can't find any stats on how Texas places in firms outside of Texas. To access if Texas is T14 it would be helpful to see how big is its reach. Does anyone have specific current numbers on students who went to work for firms outside of Texas?

Texas mainly places in Texas. Probably a good deal of self-selection. Berkley places mostly in Cali, does that make it any less T-14?

True, but Berkeley does have a good name recognition elsewhere. Top 25-50% of Berkeley's class can probably find desirable work outside of Cali. Can same be said about Texas?

I understand your premise, but the question is flawed. Maybe Berk is just a better school with overall placement and thus top 50% can find work outside of Cali. It'd be like saying, if only Berk's top25% could place in NYC and SLS's top 70% could, Berk is not "T14" enough lol.

But to answer your 'real' question...ITE, I have no idea, but pre-ITE, UT grads finding work outside of TX was very realistic if they grades and inclination were there. So name recognition at least used to be good enough.

I can see what you're saying. Berkeley is higher ranked than Texas, SLS is higher ranked than Berkeley, thus at each school the option to work out of state will be viable for more and more percentage of the class.

Yet, I am wondering are Cornell, GULC, and Texas truly peers, and is Texas T14 status. Will marketing people at Texas be "fair" to imply that Texas JD has similar major market employment prospects as the rest of t14? I don't know the answer to this question, especially ITE. But I did find a list of firms that employed Texas grads. To say Texas is overrepresented is an understatement. It may be self selection, but still.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... 007_10.pdf

[DoubleChecks]

Look at the firms that come to Texas OCI. Look at the firms that go to Berkeley OCI. Look at the top firms around the country and count the number of Berkeley associates/partners. Now do the same for Texas.

Berkeley doesn't have better placement because its a higher ranked school. Its a higher ranked school because it has better placement.

you're just not understanding my point -- read alex's post below yours, he gets it

[DoubleChecks]

Texas mainly places in Texas. Probably a good deal of self-selection. Berkley places mostly in Cali, does that make it any less T-14?

True, but Berkeley does have a good name recognition elsewhere. Top 25-50% of Berkeley's class can probably find desirable work outside of Cali. Can same be said about Texas?

I understand your premise, but the question is flawed. Maybe Berk is just a better school with overall placement and thus top 50% can find work outside of Cali. It'd be like saying, if only Berk's top25% could place in NYC and SLS's top 70% could, Berk is not "T14" enough lol.

But to answer your 'real' question...ITE, I have no idea, but pre-ITE, UT grads finding work outside of TX was very realistic if they grades and inclination were there. So name recognition at least used to be good enough.

I can see what you're saying. Berkeley is higher ranked than Texas, SLS is higher ranked than Berkeley, thus at each school the option to work out of state will be viable for more and more percentage of the class.

Yet, I am wondering are Cornell, GULC, and Texas truly peers, and is Texas T14 status. Will marketing people at Texas be "fair" to imply that Texas JD has similar major market employment prospects as the rest of t14? I don't know the answer to this question, especially ITE. But I did find a list of firms that employed Texas grads. To say Texas is overrepresented is an understatement. It may be self selection, but still.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... 007_10.pdf

Thank you for understanding my point. To address yours, I feel as if your link is more supportive of TX being T14 worthy than not. It has a huge skew towards TX due to self-selection AND for maybe those that do not have the grades to not get out of TX. It is a super-regional school as well. I'm not saying it is as good as ANY T14, but bottom T14s? Very possible.

Hard to compare to some of the other bottom ones though, just purely due to location. I wonder if Gtown or Cornell places much better than UT does in California...

And just as a personal feeling, from what I've read, I've always felt UT was a bit better at placing nationally than UCLA (no idea on comparisons to say, Vandy).

[Curry]

Look at the firms that come to Texas OCI. Look at the firms that go to Berkeley OCI. Look at the top firms around the country and count the number of Berkeley associates/partners. Now do the same for Texas.

Berkeley doesn't have better placement because its a higher ranked school. Its a higher ranked school because it has better placement.

you're just not understanding my point -- read alex's post below yours, he gets it

Read it. Even then, my point stands. Berkeley places a sizeable portion of its grads across the country. Texas does not. Thats why Berkeley is considered a t14 school while Texas, even though its ranked 14, will never be associated with that term (especially because t14 = schools that have been in the top 10).

As for Stanford placing more than Berkeley, that argument is stupid. Stanford is a BETTER school than Berkeley. Its why we have HLS CCN MVPB etc. Berkeley places the same as its peers does. Texas doesn't come close to placing the same as those schools.

[DoubleChecks]

Look at the firms that come to Texas OCI. Look at the firms that go to Berkeley OCI. Look at the top firms around the country and count the number of Berkeley associates/partners. Now do the same for Texas.

Berkeley doesn't have better placement because its a higher ranked school. Its a higher ranked school because it has better placement.

you're just not understanding my point -- read alex's post below yours, he gets it

Read it. Even then, my point stands. Berkeley places a sizeable portion of its grads across the country. Texas does not. Thats why Berkeley is considered a t14 school while Texas, even though its ranked 14, will never be associated with that term (especially because t14 = schools that have been in the top 10).

As for Stanford placing more than Berkeley, that argument is stupid. Stanford is a BETTER school than Berkeley. Its why we have HLS CCN MVPB etc. Berkeley places the same as its peers does. Texas doesn't come close to placing the same as those schools.

Isn't that YOUR argument when comparing Berk to TX? Need I dissect all your posts? Fine, I'll do it.

Your first one about Berk allowing its students to place nationally (assuming they have the grades) is a stupid comment because TX allows its students to be placed nationally (assuming they have the grades). Yes, top 10% TX can place nationally (esp. considering I was talking about pre-ITE even)! Berk prob doesn't need as high of a class ranking, but that wasn't your statement.

Your second comment comparing Berk partners and TX is even dumber. Even you admit it is a stupid argument. Hey look, Harvard has more associates/partners around the country than Berk...Berk must not be T14 material. Oh and I never said Berk has better placement because it is a higher ranked school. My whole point was comparing the two is stupid BECAUSE Berk is a much better school.

It isn't about comparing Berk to TX. It is the question of whether TX places enough grads around the country to be a T14, or maybe even whether it has the national reach that similarly ranked schools in the bottom of the T14 do. The only comparisons, albeit still difficult ones to make due to geographic constraints, would be between TX and GULC, Cornell, etc. and maybe even Vandy for counter-point purposes. You finally hit the nail on the head at the end -- yes, a more poignant argument would be how TX places relative to its peers in the T14.

[Alex-Trof]

Thank you for understanding my point. To address yours, I feel as if your link is more supportive of TX being T14 worthy than not. It has a huge skew towards TX due to self-selection AND for maybe those that do not have the grades to not get out of TX. It is a super-regional school as well. I'm not saying it is as good as ANY T14, but bottom T14s? Very possible.

Hard to compare to some of the other bottom ones though, just purely due to location. I wonder if Gtown or Cornell places much better than UT does in California...

And just as a personal feeling, from what I've read, I've always felt UT was a bit better at placing nationally than UCLA (no idea on comparisons to say, Vandy).

Yeah, I sort of see what you're saying. The way I see it, t14 is a decent shot at big law at major legal market. Texas is a decent shot at big law in Texas. What makes GULC and Cornell different is their location. They happen to be in a major legal market. However, if Texas economy grows and DFW/Houston catch up, I don't see why Texas wouldn't be t14.

And it would be very interesting to see how GULC and Cornell compare to Texas when it comes to Cali. Texas trolls, can we get some info, please...LOL.

I agree about UCLA.

[DoubleChecks]

Thank you for understanding my point. To address yours, I feel as if your link is more supportive of TX being T14 worthy than not. It has a huge skew towards TX due to self-selection AND for maybe those that do not have the grades to not get out of TX. It is a super-regional school as well. I'm not saying it is as good as ANY T14, but bottom T14s? Very possible.

Hard to compare to some of the other bottom ones though, just purely due to location. I wonder if Gtown or Cornell places much better than UT does in California...

And just as a personal feeling, from what I've read, I've always felt UT was a bit better at placing nationally than UCLA (no idea on comparisons to say, Vandy).

Yeah, I sort of see what you're saying. The way I see it, t14 is a decent shot at big law at major legal market. Texas is a decent shot at big law in Texas. What makes GULC and Cornell different is their location. They happen to be in a major legal market. However, if Texas economy grows and DFW/Houston catch up, I don't see why Texas wouldn't be t14.

And it would be very interesting to see how GULC and Cornell compare to Texas when it comes to Cali. Texas trolls, can we get some info, please...LOL.

I agree about UCLA.

Agreed, but if your definition of a T14 is just a decent shot at big law at a major legal market, then UCLA and even USC could count. And TX would almost definitely count as virtually all biglaw firms in TX pay $160K (I know, I know, bad argument for whether it is a major legal market or not, but I think most would agree that it is at least one of the biggest secondary markets, with LA, NYC, and DC (maybe Chicago? iunno) being the primary markets?).

[Curry]

Look at the firms that come to Texas OCI. Look at the firms that go to Berkeley OCI. Look at the top firms around the country and count the number of Berkeley associates/partners. Now do the same for Texas.

Berkeley doesn't have better placement because its a higher ranked school. Its a higher ranked school because it has better placement.

you're just not understanding my point -- read alex's post below yours, he gets it

Read it. Even then, my point stands. Berkeley places a sizeable portion of its grads across the country. Texas does not. Thats why Berkeley is considered a t14 school while Texas, even though its ranked 14, will never be associated with that term (especially because t14 = schools that have been in the top 10).

As for Stanford placing more than Berkeley, that argument is stupid. Stanford is a BETTER school than Berkeley. Its why we have HLS CCN MVPB etc. Berkeley places the same as its peers does. Texas doesn't come close to placing the same as those schools.

Isn't that YOUR argument when comparing Berk to TX? Need I dissect all your posts? Fine, I'll do it.

Your first one about Berk allowing its students to place nationally (assuming they have the grades) is a stupid comment because TX allows its students to be placed nationally (assuming they have the grades). Yes, top 10% TX can place nationally (esp. considering I was talking about pre-ITE even)! Berk prob doesn't need as high of a class ranking, but that wasn't your statement.

Your second comment comparing Berk partners and TX is even dumber. Even you admit it is a stupid argument. Hey look, Harvard has more associates/partners around the country than Berk...Berk must not be T14 material. Oh and I never said Berk has better placement because it is a higher ranked school. My whole point was comparing the two is stupid BECAUSE Berk is a much better school.

It isn't about comparing Berk to TX. It is the question of whether TX places enough grads around the country to be a T14, or maybe even whether it has the national reach that similarly ranked schools in the bottom of the T14 do. The only comparisons, albeit still difficult ones to make due to geographic constraints, would be between TX and GULC, Cornell, etc. and maybe even Vandy for counter-point purposes. You finally hit the nail on the head at the end -- yes, a more poignant argument would be how TX places relative to its peers in the T14.

No. Just no.

Texas grads at top 25% struggle to place in texas ITE. Georgetown grads at top33% struggle nationally. Thats a HUGE difference. Berkeley grads at top 40% struggle nationally. Do you see the difference?

The associates partner comparison was more "oh look.. almost ALL of Texas' grads are in Texas. Berkeley has a huge percentage in LA, but they are scattered around the country." Percentage wise, outside of Texas, the comparison of Berkeley grads to Texas grads in law firms goes unbelievably in Berkeleys favor. When you make that same comparison with GULC or Cornell, that tilting goes away. Its not a stupid argument to say that because EVERY school in the t14 has more national associates than Texas does, and by a substantive amount, that then its possible that Texas just doesn't belong in that category. Sure the difference between STanford and Cornell is large, but work with me here. If we look at an arbitrary scale and say stanford grad placement is a 10 and Cornell is a 6. the schools inbetween can be ranked: CCN = 9. MVPB = 8. Rest of the t14 = 6. Texas is however a 2? Even though the dropoff between stanford and cornell is a valued at 6, because the disparity between the schools as you work your way down is so much smaller than the dropoff between Cornell and Texas, you can say that the first batch of schools are supposed to be in one category, while the other group of schools is supposed to be in another.

[lisjjen]

Thank you for understanding my point. To address yours, I feel as if your link is more supportive of TX being T14 worthy than not. It has a huge skew towards TX due to self-selection AND for maybe those that do not have the grades to not get out of TX. It is a super-regional school as well. I'm not saying it is as good as ANY T14, but bottom T14s? Very possible.

Hard to compare to some of the other bottom ones though, just purely due to location. I wonder if Gtown or Cornell places much better than UT does in California...

And just as a personal feeling, from what I've read, I've always felt UT was a bit better at placing nationally than UCLA (no idea on comparisons to say, Vandy).

Yeah, I sort of see what you're saying. The way I see it, t14 is a decent shot at big law at major legal market. Texas is a decent shot at big law in Texas. What makes GULC and Cornell different is their location. They happen to be in a major legal market. However, if Texas economy grows and DFW/Houston catch up, I don't see why Texas wouldn't be t14.

And it would be very interesting to see how GULC and Cornell compare to Texas when it comes to Cali. Texas trolls, can we get some info, please...LOL.

I agree about UCLA.

There is a Tex-obsession in the USA right now. If Texas (the state) trolls are right and it's the next California, maybe UT really will be Berkely someday.

[DoubleChecks]

Isn't that YOUR argument when comparing Berk to TX? Need I dissect all your posts? Fine, I'll do it.

Your first one about Berk allowing its students to place nationally (assuming they have the grades) is a stupid comment because TX allows its students to be placed nationally (assuming they have the grades). Yes, top 10% TX can place nationally (esp. considering I was talking about pre-ITE even)! Berk prob doesn't need as high of a class ranking, but that wasn't your statement.

Your second comment comparing Berk partners and TX is even dumber. Even you admit it is a stupid argument. Hey look, Harvard has more associates/partners around the country than Berk...Berk must not be T14 material. Oh and I never said Berk has better placement because it is a higher ranked school. My whole point was comparing the two is stupid BECAUSE Berk is a much better school.

It isn't about comparing Berk to TX. It is the question of whether TX places enough grads around the country to be a T14, or maybe even whether it has the national reach that similarly ranked schools in the bottom of the T14 do. The only comparisons, albeit still difficult ones to make due to geographic constraints, would be between TX and GULC, Cornell, etc. and maybe even Vandy for counter-point purposes. You finally hit the nail on the head at the end -- yes, a more poignant argument would be how TX places relative to its peers in the T14.

No. Just no.

Texas grads at top 25% struggle to place in texas ITE. Georgetown grads at top33% struggle nationally. Thats a HUGE difference. Berkeley grads at top 40% struggle nationally. Do you see the difference?

The associates partner comparison was more "oh look.. almost ALL of Texas' grads are in Texas. Berkeley has a huge percentage in LA, but they are scattered around the country." Percentage wise, outside of Texas, the comparison of Berkeley grads to Texas grads in law firms goes unbelievably in Berkeleys favor. When you make that same comparison with GULC or Cornell, that tilting goes away. Its not a stupid argument to say that because EVERY school in the t14 has more national associates than Texas does, and by a substantive amount, that then its possible that Texas just doesn't belong in that category. Sure the difference between STanford and Cornell is large, but work with me here. If we look at an arbitrary scale and say stanford grad placement is a 10 and Cornell is a 6. the schools inbetween can be ranked: CCN = 9. MVPB = 8. Rest of the t14 = 6. Texas is however a 2? Even though the dropoff between stanford and cornell is a valued at 6, because the disparity between the schools as you work your way down is so much smaller than the dropoff between Cornell and Texas, you can say that the first batch of schools are supposed to be in one category, while the other group of schools is supposed to be in another.

Three things:

1) Numbers please. You are sort of just making up numbers as you go along. I mean, almost your entire post is just made up arbitrary numbers lol. Also, like I mentioned in another post, how are we deciding what is 'national'...placing into NYC? Or national REACH, i.e. how well they fare in California, for example (GULC, Cornell, UT)?

2) Even if we assume all your numbers are correct, I would only agree with your current above post. My earlier responses were responding to your earlier posts, which were not comparing all schools in the T14 to TX. Just Berk. You're right, if every school in the T14 has substantively more national associates/partners than TX, TX wouldn't fit in the T14 category. That was not what you were arguing earlier.

3) Bolded/italicized part -- I find that comment interesting. Could you be more specific? Are you saying % of Berk grads not in California is not that much greater than the % of Cornell grads not in NY and the % of GULC grads not in DC? If so, I'd find that much more convincing, especially if you're also saying (and proving) the aforementioned GULC and Cornell %'s are much, much greater than UT's % of grads not in TX.

lunch break lawl

[Alex-Trof]

Agreed, but if your definition of a T14 is just a decent shot at big law at a major legal market, then UCLA and even USC could count. And TX would almost definitely count as virtually all biglaw firms in TX pay $160K (I know, I know, bad argument for whether it is a major legal market or not, but I think most would agree that it is at least one of the biggest secondary markets, with LA, NYC, and DC (maybe Chicago? iunno) being the primary markets?).

It's definitely all about how you define things (t14, major markets, etc...) Texas is t14 if you consider Texas to be a major legal market. And I just thought of a counter-example to my definition: Duke. It is t14 that may not provide a decent shot at a primary market. Not sure about the numbers though.

When it comes to USC/UCLA I still don't think those schools have the numbers to be a decent big law shot ITE. I think the recession actually made t14 stand out more. There was a discussion here about USC vs. Cornell for LA and the opinions were split.

[alexonfyre]

Reality check here:

Firms know that a top 10% UT grad and a top 10% Berk grad are likely to perform at about the same level when actually put into the job. However, telling a potential client that they have X number of attorneys from Berkeley will mean way more than having X number of attorneys from UT. I talk to people who aren't involved in law all the time about law schools, Berkeley, Cornell, UCLA and (surprisingly) WashU are schools that I have heard multiple times as "top 5 schools" which are not actually T6 schools. You know where people generally think UT is (outside of Texas)? Top 25, Top 30.

Prestige within the legal community does not always jive with prestige at-large and firms are going to hire from the schools that their clients know and respect. If you aren't from Texas, and you don't closely follow the legal world, then chances are you have no idea that UT is ranked the same as Georgetown, or even that it is considered a program on par with some of the Ivy League. As long as UT grads (from all of the schools, not just JDs) continue to primarily work in Texas, UT will continue to have a more regional than national reputation.

[nonprofit-prophet]

No. Just no.

Texas grads at top 25% struggle to place in texas ITE. Georgetown grads at top33% struggle nationally. Thats a HUGE difference. Berkeley grads at top 40% struggle nationally. Do you see the difference?

The associates partner comparison was more "oh look.. almost ALL of Texas' grads are in Texas. Berkeley has a huge percentage in LA, but they are scattered around the country." Percentage wise, outside of Texas, the comparison of Berkeley grads to Texas grads in law firms goes unbelievably in Berkeleys favor. When you make that same comparison with GULC or Cornell, that tilting goes away. Its not a stupid argument to say that because EVERY school in the t14 has more national associates than Texas does, and by a substantive amount, that then its possible that Texas just doesn't belong in that category. Sure the difference between STanford and Cornell is large, but work with me here. If we look at an arbitrary scale and say stanford grad placement is a 10 and Cornell is a 6. the schools inbetween can be ranked: CCN = 9. MVPB = 8. Rest of the t14 = 6. Texas is however a 2? Even though the dropoff between stanford and cornell is a valued at 6, because the disparity between the schools as you work your way down is so much smaller than the dropoff between Cornell and Texas, you can say that the first batch of schools are supposed to be in one category, while the other group of schools is supposed to be in another.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with some of your "numbers." I have friends in the top 15% that could have gotten NYC if they wanted it. Instead, they are working at the big 3 in Houston and Dallas. There is one poster on here (on law review) that has mentioned his struggles, but in one thread he revealed that he was a terrible interviewer (his descriptions of his interview misconceptions were a bit surprising). So I don't know if you are referencing his posts, but I think he is an outlier.

[lisjjen]

No. Just no.

Texas grads at top 25% struggle to place in texas ITE. Georgetown grads at top33% struggle nationally. Thats a HUGE difference. Berkeley grads at top 40% struggle nationally. Do you see the difference?

The associates partner comparison was more "oh look.. almost ALL of Texas' grads are in Texas. Berkeley has a huge percentage in LA, but they are scattered around the country." Percentage wise, outside of Texas, the comparison of Berkeley grads to Texas grads in law firms goes unbelievably in Berkeleys favor. When you make that same comparison with GULC or Cornell, that tilting goes away. Its not a stupid argument to say that because EVERY school in the t14 has more national associates than Texas does, and by a substantive amount, that then its possible that Texas just doesn't belong in that category. Sure the difference between STanford and Cornell is large, but work with me here. If we look at an arbitrary scale and say stanford grad placement is a 10 and Cornell is a 6. the schools inbetween can be ranked: CCN = 9. MVPB = 8. Rest of the t14 = 6. Texas is however a 2? Even though the dropoff between stanford and cornell is a valued at 6, because the disparity between the schools as you work your way down is so much smaller than the dropoff between Cornell and Texas, you can say that the first batch of schools are supposed to be in one category, while the other group of schools is supposed to be in another.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with some of your "numbers." I have friends in the top 15% that could have gotten NYC if they wanted it. Instead, they are working at the big 3 in Houston and Dallas. There is one poster on here (on law review) that has mentioned his struggles, but in one thread he revealed that he was a terrible interviewer (his descriptions of his interview misconceptions were a bit surprising). So I don't know if you are referencing his posts, but I think he is an outlier.

JazzOne?

[whymeohgodno]

Texas has a balling law review. But they still aren't t14

[lisjjen]

Texas has a balling law review. But they still aren't t14

Engage the material pimp. They are technically T14. If you can count, you can tell that they're in the top 14. ITT, we talk about all that signifies.

[beachbum]

This discussion makes my head hurt. We've all been throwing around the T14 distinction for quite some time now, and I think that, deep-down, we all know which schools belong in this grouping and which don't. We can argue all day about how the T14 came to be, but we've recognized Georgetown as a T14 and Texas as... whatever is behind the T14.

So Texas got slotted into the 14th spot by US News. Super. This doesn't change the fact that the T14 has almost always been composed of the same schools and that T14 schools have always enjoyed placement power at least marginally better than all other schools. For more on this, see past US News rankings and NLJ 250 rankings.

Now, I do think there is an argument to be made for the T13, as GULC has consistently been the weakest T14. But since we're not having that discussion here, I fail to see why this T14 argument has carried on so long. But I guess that's just like TLS to argue over every little detail and ranking.

Also-and this is a big pet peeve of mine-if you're gonna make big assertions about specific schools (or specific groupings of schools), at least back them up with numbers. Hell, at least look at the numbers beforehand. Thank you.

[flcath]

This discussion makes my head hurt. We've all been throwing around the T14 distinction for quite some time now, and I think that, deep-down, we all know which schools belong in this grouping and which don't. We can argue all day about how the T14 came to be, but we've recognized Georgetown as a T14 and Texas as... whatever is behind the T14.

So Texas got slotted into the 14th spot by US News. Super. This doesn't change the fact that the T14 has almost always been composed of the same schools and that T14 schools have always enjoyed placement power at least marginally better than all other schools. For more on this, see past US News rankings and NLJ 250 rankings.

Now, I do think there is an argument to be made for the T13, as GULC has consistently been the weakest T14. But since we're not having that discussion here, I fail to see why this T14 argument has carried on so long. But I guess that's just like TLS to argue over every little detail and ranking.

Also-and this is a big pet peeve of mine-if you're gonna make big assertions about specific schools (or specific groupings of schools), at least back them up with numbers. Hell, at least look at the numbers beforehand. Thank you.

I agree with this post in one sense: the true usefulness of the T14 is that everyone knows exactly which schools you're talking about (and UT isn't one of them). You can't say that about T10, T15, T20, etc.

Unfortunately, for T14-advocates, the same can now be said of T13 (everyone knows it's GULC that's being excluded) or T17 (which ppl here recognize as T14 + Vandy/UT/UCLA).

The T14 was invented around 2001 (the term itself... yes I realize these schools were good before; this is not the same thing), and you'll still find those--esp. practicing lawyers who've been out of school for several years, and obviously all clients--who haven't heard of it. It's far from being too entrenched to be replaced.

[lisjjen]

Things take time to change. But you also have to give them time to change. If UT can stay in the Top 14 for another 5 years and keep improving their stats, people will start to group them with the rest.

[whymeohgodno]

Na son you gotta break into T10 to be a T14. That's the definition of a T14. Schools that have been in the Top 10.

[lisjjen]

Na son you gotta break into T10 to be a T14. That's the definition of a T14. Schools that have been in the Top 10.

Where does this keep coming from? It's like TLS users keep finding increasingly elitist definitions to describe the world. The term is T14. It means the Top 14. If you can count, then you can tell that Texas is now in the top 14.

[AreJay711]

Na son you gotta break into T10 to be a T14. That's the definition of a T14. Schools that have been in the Top 10.

So if GULC fell to #18 (I know it probably won't happen) you would still consider it a t14? I think your post is an observation of the schools traditionally in the t14 rather than an essential part of the definition.

[DoubleChecks]

Given time, definition of T14 could change. Idea of T14 is decently well known however...I mean I was reading about it in a yahoo article lol.

But yeah, I think an argument for T13 is a fair one lol.