A Silly Question, but What About T15, T16, T17... Forum

[scifiguy]

This might be a really dumb question, but I'm asking genuinely. lol

I see there's something called T14 here that many people use to talk about the "good law schools." But I'm curious though. If the rankings change any given year, then doesn't that mean T14 isn't a stable category? Do employers literally look at the top 14 law schools from the US News World Report for that year to determine who they'll interview? What happens if a #13 school drops to #17 one year and vice versa?

Is it really that rigid of a hiring system for big law jobs? Would they really turn away a "good" (hypothetically top 25% of class) student from the #17th ranked law school?

[The Duck]

It's never really happened. The T14 has always been the T14. Yes, it really is that rigid for hiring. Top 5 people or so at #17 would have a shot. Top 1/3?...not chance.

Edit: It's true that UT tied into the T14. UT places well in Texas and top UT people have a shot at other market. But top 1/3 at UT likely isn't breaking into DC/NYC.

[oshberg28]

The T14 has been basically set for several years. Since 1990, only the University of Texas-Austin has been able to crack the "T14", when it tied Georgetown University for the 14th spot in 2012. The rankings within the "T14" vary from year to year, but all of the same schools have been in the T14 since 1990.

[NoodleyOne]

GeorgTTTown sucks anyway... it should just be T13.

(elitist)

[rinkrat19]

Texas tied for 14th last year, and in the very first year of the rankings Cornell was 15th and UCLA was 14th, but aside from those two aberrations, the top 14 are ALWAYS the top 14.

It would take a major shakeup lasting several years to change the T14 designation.

A few people do say T15, but they all go to UT or UCLA and don't count.

[Crowing]

Many distinctions people tend to make are fairly arbitrary such as non-HYS tiers within the T-14. But the T-14 itself is at least based in tangible differences; there is a signiicant gap in enployment statistics between even a lower T-14 like Cornell and schools just outside of the T-14 like Vandy, UT, UCLA, etc.

[09042014]

This might be a really dumb question, but I'm asking genuinely. lol

I see there's something called T14 here that many people use to talk about the "good law schools." But I'm curious though. If the rankings change any given year, then doesn't that mean T14 isn't a stable category? Do employers literally look at the top 14 law schools from the US News World Report for that year to determine who they'll interview? What happens if a #13 school drops to #17 one year and vice versa?

Is it really that rigid of a hiring system for big law jobs? Would they really turn away a "good" (hypothetically top 25% of class) student from the #17th ranked law school?

The reason t14 is a thing is because there happen to be 14 elite national schools. US News always ranks them that way, because US news is an attempt to rank the schools by quality. If all the sudden Texas was 12, it still wouldn't be a T14.

US news doesn't make T14.

[Jredelman15]

It's never really happened. The T14 has always been the T14. Yes, it really is that rigid for hiring. Top 5 people or so at #17 would have a shot. Top 1/3?...not chance.

Edit: It's true that UT tied into the T14. UT places well in Texas and top UT people have a shot at other market. But top 1/3 at UT likely isn't breaking into DC/NYC.

Did you just say that only the top 5 ppl at a T17 would have a chance? You have got to be kidding me. The top 5 ppl at WVU got biglaw last year. OP this is a severe exaggeration.

[rayiner]

You've got cause and effect reversed. Employers in, e.g., Chicago don't hire mostly from U Chicago and Northwestern because they're ranked in the T14. They do so because U Chicago and Northwestern are the most prominent schools in Chicago. Northwestern and U Chicago are ranked in the T14 because Chicago is the third largest legal market in the country.

In terms of reputation, UCLA and USC should probably be included in any grouping, as the best schools in LA, and UT should be included as the best school in Texas. People usually draw the cut-off at T14 rather than T17, however, because historically LA and Texas haven't been huge legal markets.

[somewhatwayward]

I heard the T14 includes all the schools that have been, at some point, ranked in the top 10.

[indigomachine]

You've got cause and effect reversed. Employers in, e.g., Chicago don't hire mostly from U Chicago and Northwestern because they're ranked in the T14. They do so because U Chicago and Northwestern are the most prominent schools in Chicago. Northwestern and U Chicago are ranked in the T14 because Chicago is the third largest legal market in the country.

In terms of reputation, UCLA and USC should probably be included in any grouping, as the best schools in LA, and UT should be included as the best school in Texas. People usually draw the cut-off at T14 rather than T17, however, because historically LA and Texas haven't been huge legal markets.

Doesn't this get overshadowed by the presence of Berkeley and Stanford as primary feeders into the CA market in general? (idk LA placement; are UCLA and USC even close to Berkeley?)

[rayiner]

You've got cause and effect reversed. Employers in, e.g., Chicago don't hire mostly from U Chicago and Northwestern because they're ranked in the T14. They do so because U Chicago and Northwestern are the most prominent schools in Chicago. Northwestern and U Chicago are ranked in the T14 because Chicago is the third largest legal market in the country.

In terms of reputation, UCLA and USC should probably be included in any grouping, as the best schools in LA, and UT should be included as the best school in Texas. People usually draw the cut-off at T14 rather than T17, however, because historically LA and Texas haven't been huge legal markets.

Doesn't this get overshadowed by the presence of Berkeley and Stanford as primary feeders into the CA market in general? (idk LA placement; are UCLA and USC even close to Berkeley?)

In terms of size and regional importance, LA should really be able to justify its own set of top schools, just as NYU and Columbia dominate NYC despite being overshadowed by Harvard and Yale which aren't too far away. The difference is really that while LA's economy is big, it's character is such that it isn't as influential of a commercial/finance center as NYC or Chicago. Being an entertainment hub doesn't generate the same level of legal work as being a financial hub. It's also probably why Detroit doesn't have any top schools, despite being a very economically important city in the middle of the century.

[EvilClinton]

In terms of size and regional importance, LA should really be able to justify its own set of top schools, just as NYU and Columbia dominate NYC despite being overshadowed by Harvard and Yale which aren't too far away. The difference is really that while LA's economy is big, it's character is such that it isn't as influential of a commercial/finance center as NYC or Chicago. Being an entertainment hub doesn't generate the same level of legal work as being a financial hub. It's also probably why Detroit doesn't have any top schools, despite being a very economically important city in the middle of the century.

Not to split hairs but Detroit did have one of the best law school in the nation at one time.....Michigan.

Before the rankings came out (and during their early years), Michigan was considered a top 3 school. Ann Arbor is extremely close to Detroit and the school and the city were very symbiotic during Detroit's boom times.

Edit: Link to historical rankings: http://www.prelawhandbook.com/law_schoo ... sn_history

[chadbrochill]

Not to split hairs but Detroit did have one of the best law school in the nation at one time.....Michigan.

Before the rankings came out (and during their early years), Michigan was considered a top 3 school. Ann Arbor is extremely close to Detroit and the school and the city were very symbiotic during Detroit's boom times.

Wow if this is true this explains alot about Michigan's recent fall. I know they primarily feed the NYC market nowadays, but to be honest I feel like I'd be better served at DNCG for NYC biglaw lately, is this wrong?

[Archangel]

OP, the graphic in the the following link may better illustrate the distinction in historical trends relative to rankings allowing you to draw your own conclusions about the T15, T16, T17, etc.

--LinkRemoved--

[The Duck]

It's never really happened. The T14 has always been the T14. Yes, it really is that rigid for hiring. Top 5 people or so at #17 would have a shot. Top 1/3?...not chance.

Edit: It's true that UT tied into the T14. UT places well in Texas and top UT people have a shot at other market. But top 1/3 at UT likely isn't breaking into DC/NYC.

Did you just say that only the top 5 ppl at a T17 would have a chance? You have got to be kidding me. The top 5 ppl at WVU got biglaw last year. OP this is a severe exaggeration.

Maybe, but I doubt its top 1/3. I don't have access to detailed employment information on those schools and can only go with what I've been told by several hiring partners in BigLaw firms. Nor do I really care that much to research it. Also, not all BigLaw firms will view these people in the same way.

The truth is, schools right outside the T14 are a hugely different story than those at #20-30 for instance. So it's possible I overstated it for #17 but not once you get a few schools lower. (Compare Vandy to GWU for instance.) And this will only increase dramatically as you go further down the T1.

Nor is it wise to go to a law school based upon what the top 1/3 can do...because odds are you won't be in the top 1/3.

[rayiner]

It's never really happened. The T14 has always been the T14. Yes, it really is that rigid for hiring. Top 5 people or so at #17 would have a shot. Top 1/3?...not chance.

Edit: It's true that UT tied into the T14. UT places well in Texas and top UT people have a shot at other market. But top 1/3 at UT likely isn't breaking into DC/NYC.

Did you just say that only the top 5 ppl at a T17 would have a chance? You have got to be kidding me. The top 5 ppl at WVU got biglaw last year. OP this is a severe exaggeration.

Maybe, but I doubt its top 1/3. I don't have access to detailed employment information on those schools and can only go with what I've been told by several hiring partners in BigLaw firms. Nor do I really care that much to research it. Also, not all BigLaw firms will view these people in the same way.

The truth is, schools right outside the T14 are a hugely different story than those at #20-30 for instance. So it's possible I overstated it for #17 but not once you get a few schools lower. (Compare Vandy to GWU for instance.) And this will only increase dramatically as you go further down the T1.

Nor is it wise to go to a law school based upon what the top 1/3 can do...because odds are you won't be in the top 1/3.

The T14-18 area is a little fuzzy, but there is a huge drop-off from T13 to T25 to T50. Compare some midwestern schools for placement into firms of 100+ and federal clerkships:

Northwestern (#12): 61%
Minnesota (#19): 17%
Wash U (#23): 22%
Illinois (#35): 19%
U Wisconsin (#35): 12%.

Recalling that Illinois is historically a T25 (and dropped to #35 because of the scandal), you double placement from T50 to T25, then triple it from T25 to T14.

[mr.hands]

I heard the T14 includes all the schools that have been, at some point, ranked in the top 10.

Yup. This is true

OP, look at the hiring statistics from inside T14 and compare it to non-T14 schools. The dropoff is huge, even at schools ranked in the top 20 or 25 in the country.

T14 really is rigid. Either you're in or you're out.

EDIT: I should be clear, i only say "top 20 or 25" because i'm drawing an arbitrary line for the purposes of this illustration. No one cares if you're inside the top 25 or not. Sorry ASU

[nigelfrost]

I just want to clarify something that I think OP and others in this thread (nay, forum) are missing: the T14 schools are not "the top 14 schools as ranked by US News." The T14 are the "only schools to have been ranked in the top 10 by US News."

Statements such as "UT managed to 'break into the T14' last year" are incorrect. If UT had been ranked #10 or greater, THEN UT would have done something monumental and there would no longer be a T14, but a T15.

Finally, as a sidenote, this little explanation should make it clear why G-town's status is tenuous at best, since it hasn't broken #10 in almost two decades (and no, this is not just flagrant GW trolling).

[glitter178]

It's never really happened. The T14 has always been the T14. Yes, it really is that rigid for hiring. Top 5 people or so at #17 would have a shot. Top 1/3?...not chance.

Edit: It's true that UT tied into the T14. UT places well in Texas and top UT people have a shot at other market. But top 1/3 at UT likely isn't breaking into DC/NYC.

Did you just say that only the top 5 ppl at a T17 would have a chance? You have got to be kidding me. The top 5 ppl at WVU got biglaw last year. OP this is a severe exaggeration.

Maybe, but I doubt its top 1/3. I don't have access to detailed employment information on those schools and can only go with what I've been told by several hiring partners in BigLaw firms. Nor do I really care that much to research it. Also, not all BigLaw firms will view these people in the same way.

The truth is, schools right outside the T14 are a hugely different story than those at #20-30 for instance. So it's possible I overstated it for #17 but not once you get a few schools lower. (Compare Vandy to GWU for instance.) And this will only increase dramatically as you go further down the T1.

Nor is it wise to go to a law school based upon what the top 1/3 can do...because odds are you won't be in the top 1/3.

USC at #18 places 30% in Biglaw.

[09042014]

I just want to clarify something that I think OP and others in this thread (nay, forum) are missing: the T14 schools are not "the top 14 schools as ranked by US News." The T14 are the "only schools to have been ranked in the top 10 by US News."

Statements such as "UT managed to 'break into the T14' last year" are incorrect. If UT had been ranked #10 or greater, THEN UT would have done something monumental and there would no longer be a T14, but a T15.

Finally, as a sidenote, this little explanation should make it clear why G-town's status is tenuous at best, since it hasn't broken #10 in almost two decades (and no, this is not just flagrant GW trolling).

That is just some bullshit retcon.

[rayiner]

I just want to clarify something that I think OP and others in this thread (nay, forum) are missing: the T14 schools are not "the top 14 schools as ranked by US News." The T14 are the "only schools to have been ranked in the top 10 by US News."

Statements such as "UT managed to 'break into the T14' last year" are incorrect. If UT had been ranked #10 or greater, THEN UT would have done something monumental and there would no longer be a T14, but a T15.

Finally, as a sidenote, this little explanation should make it clear why G-town's status is tenuous at best, since it hasn't broken #10 in almost two decades (and no, this is not just flagrant GW trolling).

This is retrospective rationalization. Northwestern was never ranked in the top 10 until 2004, and the T14 concept existed long before then.

[Mal Reynolds]

Do employers literally look at the top 14 law schools from the US News World Report for that year to determine who they'll interview?

FUCKING DROVES OF EMPLOYERS COMING TO ASU. JUMPING THREE HUNDRED SPOTS IN THE RANKINGS WAS A REVOLUTION. DROVES.

[indigomachine]

You've got cause and effect reversed. Employers in, e.g., Chicago don't hire mostly from U Chicago and Northwestern because they're ranked in the T14. They do so because U Chicago and Northwestern are the most prominent schools in Chicago. Northwestern and U Chicago are ranked in the T14 because Chicago is the third largest legal market in the country.

In terms of reputation, UCLA and USC should probably be included in any grouping, as the best schools in LA, and UT should be included as the best school in Texas. People usually draw the cut-off at T14 rather than T17, however, because historically LA and Texas haven't been huge legal markets.

Doesn't this get overshadowed by the presence of Berkeley and Stanford as primary feeders into the CA market in general? (idk LA placement; are UCLA and USC even close to Berkeley?)

In terms of size and regional importance, LA should really be able to justify its own set of top schools, just as NYU and Columbia dominate NYC despite being overshadowed by Harvard and Yale which aren't too far away. The difference is really that while LA's economy is big, it's character is such that it isn't as influential of a commercial/finance center as NYC or Chicago. Being an entertainment hub doesn't generate the same level of legal work as being a financial hub. It's also probably why Detroit doesn't have any top schools, despite being a very economically important city in the middle of the century.

Except that's not a totally fair comparison unless you're just saying "NYC firms will take HY over CN in most scenarios" in which case, HY also overshadow UCLA and USC, but that has nothing to do with proximity and feeding into a local market.

UCLA, USC, Berkeley, and SLS all seem to feed predominately into the CA market. The same can be said of NYU/CLS but not HLS/YLS for NYC. It's all fine to say they're the top schools geographically "in" LA, but it feels weird to call them the top LA schools with such a heavy presence from Berkeley and SLS. It doesn't feel weird to call NYU/CLS the top NYC schools because, even if employers would take HLS/YLS over them, HLS and YLS don't gun almost exclusively for NYC in the way it looks like Berkeley and SLS do with CA.

For CA:

Stanford had 77% of its class end up somewhere in CA (2011): http://www.law.stanford.edu/careers/pro ... -by-region

Berkeley had what looks like ~61%:--LinkRemoved--

USC had ~83%: http://weblaw.usc.edu/careers/statistics/

UCLA didn't have a breakdown by region (from a quick glance over the site), but think we're pretty much assuming that's where they feed anyways.

For NYC:

NYU had ~68%: http://www.law.nyu.edu/careerservices/e ... /index.htm

CLS had ~63%: http://www.law.columbia.edu/careers/emp ... statistics

HLS had ~33%: http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/care ... index.html

YLS had 25%: http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/employment_2011.htm

[glitter178]

You've got cause and effect reversed. Employers in, e.g., Chicago don't hire mostly from U Chicago and Northwestern because they're ranked in the T14. They do so because U Chicago and Northwestern are the most prominent schools in Chicago. Northwestern and U Chicago are ranked in the T14 because Chicago is the third largest legal market in the country.

In terms of reputation, UCLA and USC should probably be included in any grouping, as the best schools in LA, and UT should be included as the best school in Texas. People usually draw the cut-off at T14 rather than T17, however, because historically LA and Texas haven't been huge legal markets.

Doesn't this get overshadowed by the presence of Berkeley and Stanford as primary feeders into the CA market in general? (idk LA placement; are UCLA and USC even close to Berkeley?)

In terms of size and regional importance, LA should really be able to justify its own set of top schools, just as NYU and Columbia dominate NYC despite being overshadowed by Harvard and Yale which aren't too far away. The difference is really that while LA's economy is big, it's character is such that it isn't as influential of a commercial/finance center as NYC or Chicago. Being an entertainment hub doesn't generate the same level of legal work as being a financial hub. It's also probably why Detroit doesn't have any top schools, despite being a very economically important city in the middle of the century.

Except that's not a totally fair comparison unless you're just saying "NYC firms will take HY over CN in most scenarios" in which case, HY also overshadow UCLA and USC, but that has nothing to do with proximity and feeding into a local market.

UCLA, USC, Berkeley, and SLS all seem to feed predominately into the CA market. The same can be said of NYU/CLS but not HLS/YLS for NYC. It's all fine to say they're the top schools geographically "in" LA, but it feels weird to call them the top LA schools with such a heavy presence from Berkeley and SLS. It doesn't feel weird to call NYU/CLS the top NYC schools because, even if employers would take HLS/YLS over them, HLS and YLS don't gun almost exclusively for NYC in the way it looks like Berkeley and SLS do with CA.

For CA:

Stanford had 77% of its class end up somewhere in CA (2011): http://www.law.stanford.edu/careers/pro ... -by-region

Berkeley had what looks like ~61%:--LinkRemoved--

USC had ~83%: http://weblaw.usc.edu/careers/statistics/

UCLA didn't have a breakdown by region (from a quick glance over the site), but think we're pretty much assuming that's where they feed anyways.

For NYC:

NYU had ~68%: http://www.law.nyu.edu/careerservices/e ... /index.htm

CLS had ~63%: http://www.law.columbia.edu/careers/emp ... statistics

HLS had ~33%: http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/care ... index.html

YLS had 25%: http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/employment_2011.htm

But ... you're comparing city placement (NYC) to state placement (CA as a whole), and forgetting about another (small, but established) legal market: SF. I'd like to see how many SLS and Berkeley grads stay in the SF region.