Georgetown possibly slipping off the t-14 Forum

[Icculus]

When accounting for self-selection and the difficulty of the DC market, GULC is closer to the rest of the T14 in terms of placement than it is to any of the regionals.

Also, the T14 has existed since at least the 1960s. It's not going away unless there is a significant structural change in the way a school or schools do business, or a significant change in the legal economy.

This. T13 is a stupid designation peddled by 0Ls and started by DFwho can't be bothered to look beyond last year's data. When fed gov and consequent DC hiring picks up, GULC will be right back up there. If NYC imploded tomorrow, NYU's placement would take a big hit and 0Ls would be yammering about NYU being a regional school that doesn't deserve to be T6.

Though I don't think I ever would have taken the full tuition gamble on GU like I did on NU.

[guano]

The T14 are so in part because when USNWR published their first rankings, only 14 schools appeared on the first page. The relative rigidity cemented that category

^^^But who/what determined that reputation and placement?

Why one school over another? How did these elite schools begin to be elite?

Because the schools produced excellent lawyers and judges, leading prospective employers to value their graduates. This in turn led to the schools having a reputation for providing the best employment prospects, making them more desirable to prospective students. Because more students were applying than there were places, this allowed the schools to select the best and brightest, who would be given the best opportunities to do well, and thereafter going on to become top lawyers and judges.

[drive4showLSAT4dough]

--ImageRemoved--

[09042014]

The T14 are so in part because when USNWR published their first rankings, only 14 schools appeared on the first page. The relative rigidity cemented that category

^^^But who/what determined that reputation and placement?

Why one school over another? How did these elite schools begin to be elite?

Because the schools produced excellent lawyers and judges, leading prospective employers to value their graduates. This in turn led to the schools having a reputation for providing the best employment prospects, making them more desirable to prospective students. Because more students were applying than there were places, this allowed the schools to select the best and brightest, who would be given the best opportunities to do well, and thereafter going on to become top lawyers and judges.

This seems like an urban legend.

[laotze]

Chicken and egg. Greatness of school vs perception of its greatness is pretty cyclical. Consensus seems to be that most T50 legal education is of comparable quality as far as professors/lectures are concerned, merely that T14s have the best alumni connections, the most wealth, the best reputations among those of influence in the legal profession, etc., therefore the highest degree of possible selectivity among applicants.

Does it really matter how it all started? At the end of the day it's the way it is, navel-gazing be damned.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

A school's reputation is a positive feedback loop. Schools get a strong reputation by having students, and you attract great students by having a strong reputation.

A school is more likely to have a great reputation if it is:

a) Old (not a coincidence that many of the nation's top law schools are also the oldest--it's much easier to "get the ball rolling" reputation-wise when you have few competitors)
b) Continuously operational
c) Part of a wider institution with access to significant financial resources

The only real way a school can strength its reputation is if one of its specialties becomes more important relative to before. For example, Chicago strengthened its reputation after Law and Economics became a highly relevant sub-field. UCLA's reputation strengthened as the Los Angeles market became the third-biggest in the country. It's either one of those factors, or a school above them makes administrative mistakes (as we are assuming Michigan did way back when).

Make no mistake, however: As much as we like to note the irrelevance of minor rankings differences, particularly outside the T14, each spot in the rankings is worth quite literally millions of dollars to a school. Keep in mind that most schools spend several million a year on merit scholarships essentially just so they can tread water, reputation-wise. If you were the Dean of Columbia and you could magically switch reputations with Stanford (Columbia was solidly #3 until the mid-'70s) so that it were instead YHC and SCN, how much would you pay for that? It would probably be worth $50 million, maybe more.

[laotze]

A school's reputation is a positive feedback loop. Schools get a strong reputation by having students, and you attract great students by having a strong reputation.

A school is more likely to have a great reputation if it is:

a) Old (not a coincidence that many of the nation's top law schools are also the oldest--it's much easier to "get the ball rolling" reputation-wise when you have few competitors)
b) Continuously operational
c) Part of a wider institution with access to significant financial resources

The only real way a school can strength its reputation is if one of its specialties becomes more important relative to before. For example, Chicago strengthened its reputation after Law and Economics became a highly relevant sub-field. UCLA's reputation strengthened as the Los Angeles market became the third-biggest in the country. It's either one of those factors, or a school above them makes administrative mistakes (as we are assuming Michigan did way back when).

Make no mistake, however: As much as we like to note the irrelevance of minor rankings differences, particularly outside the T14, each spot in the rankings is worth quite literally millions of dollars to a school. Keep in mind that most schools spend several million a year on merit scholarships essentially just so they can tread water, reputation-wise. If you were the Dean of Columbia and you could magically switch reputations with Stanford (Columbia was solidly #3 until the mid-'70s) so that it were instead YHC and SCN, how much would you pay for that? It would probably be worth $50 million, maybe more.

This is pretty spot on, except that I think you overestimate the importance of age as an elite factor.
1.) Age of academic institutions is in the US is not generally perceived as all that important outside of Ivy recognition (to which there are even younger exceptions like Cornell), given the youth of the country itself. Even H/Y are babies next to institutions like Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Heidelberg, etc., and in broad generalizing terms Americans tend to have a distrust suspicion of old traditions and institutions anyway.
2.) Stanford, Boalt, and all good west coast schools are pretty much golden counterexamples to the age=influence and youth=lower status argument.
3.) Many of the oldest law schools in the US have little influence or prestige today, even if their undergraduate institutions do. See: William and Mary (oldest LS in USA), Penn State, St. Louis, UNC, Rutgers, etc., and that's not even taking into account the many very old schools that ultimately closed down, e.g. Litchfield. Just looking at H/Y and drawing an age-based conclusion of prestige is a little bit of a post-hoc error.

[californiauser]

If you were the Dean of Columbia and you could magically switch reputations with Stanford (Columbia was solidly #3 until the mid-'70s) so that it were instead YHC and SCN, how much would you pay for that? It would probably be worth $50 million, maybe more.

According to which rankings? I'd like to see that historical information (not saying I don't believe you).

[guano]

A school's reputation is a positive feedback loop. Schools get a strong reputation by having students, and you attract great students by having a strong reputation.

A school is more likely to have a great reputation if it is:

a) Old (not a coincidence that many of the nation's top law schools are also the oldest--it's much easier to "get the ball rolling" reputation-wise when you have few competitors)
b) Continuously operational
c) Part of a wider institution with access to significant financial resources

The only real way a school can strength its reputation is if one of its specialties becomes more important relative to before. For example, Chicago strengthened its reputation after Law and Economics became a highly relevant sub-field. UCLA's reputation strengthened as the Los Angeles market became the third-biggest in the country. It's either one of those factors, or a school above them makes administrative mistakes (as we are assuming Michigan did way back when).

Make no mistake, however: As much as we like to note the irrelevance of minor rankings differences, particularly outside the T14, each spot in the rankings is worth quite literally millions of dollars to a school. Keep in mind that most schools spend several million a year on merit scholarships essentially just so they can tread water, reputation-wise. If you were the Dean of Columbia and you could magically switch reputations with Stanford (Columbia was solidly #3 until the mid-'70s) so that it were instead YHC and SCN, how much would you pay for that? It would probably be worth $50 million, maybe more.

This is pretty spot on, except that I think you overestimate the importance of age as an elite factor.
1.) Age of academic institutions is in the US is not generally perceived as all that important outside of Ivy recognition (to which there are even younger exceptions like Cornell), given the youth of the country itself. Even H/Y are babies next to institutions like Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Heidelberg, etc., and in broad generalizing terms Americans tend to have a distrust suspicion of old traditions and institutions anyway.
2.) Stanford, Boalt, and all good west coast schools are pretty much golden counterexamples to the age=influence and youth=lower status argument.
3.) Many of the oldest law schools in the US have little influence or prestige today, even if their undergraduate institutions do. See: William and Mary (oldest LS in USA), Penn State, St. Louis, UNC, Rutgers, etc., and that's not even taking into account the many very old schools that ultimately closed down, e.g. Litchfield. Just looking at H/Y and drawing an age-based conclusion of prestige is a little bit of a post-hoc error.

Being first in a region which then booms....
Prestige follows money follows prestige

[The Brainalist]

If you were the Dean of Columbia and you could magically switch reputations with Stanford (Columbia was solidly #3 until the mid-'70s) so that it were instead YHC and SCN, how much would you pay for that? It would probably be worth $50 million, maybe more.

According to which rankings? I'd like to see that historical information (not saying I don't believe you).

Well, we at least know that Stanford wasn't alway as highly regarded, its current reputation really took hold in the 90's. As a poster above me suggests, part of the thing about age of the school is they tend to have larger endowments - but a large part of that is in its land. When silicon valley boomed the land market took off, so, in addition to having insane employment numbers from Stanford, their endowment skyrocketed.

http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_ra ... _1987_1999

I have heard that before Stanford took off, in the 1970's and 1980's, it was basically Yale, Harvard and Chicago. Chicago was enjoying the fruits of its stranglehold on everything "and economics" and the popularity of economic conservatism in the 80's.

I have never heard it, but I think it is also possible that Columbia was probably right up there with Harvard and Yale in the 1960's and early seventies. I have heard from really old attorneys that NYU was basically a commuter school back then, and no one would choose it over Columbia. So, if you imagine the quality of students and faculty Columbia would have had with no competition from NYU, you'd agree it must have been impressive.

Also, I have heard older attorneys talk about rankings when they went to law school as if they existed back then. None of them could tell me what it was from, but I think it is safe to assume that there were still books on getting into law schools or choosing colleges back then and, even if they weren't very scientific, some of those books probably gave opinions on what the top schools were.

[jbagelboy]

If you were the Dean of Columbia and you could magically switch reputations with Stanford (Columbia was solidly #3 until the mid-'70s) so that it were instead YHC and SCN, how much would you pay for that? It would probably be worth $50 million, maybe more.

According to which rankings? I'd like to see that historical information (not saying I don't believe you).

Well, we at least know that Stanford wasn't alway as highly regarded, its current reputation really took hold in the 90's. As a poster above me suggests, part of the thing about age of the school is they tend to have larger endowments - but a large part of that is in its land. When silicon valley boomed the land market took off, so, in addition to having insane employment numbers from Stanford, their endowment skyrocketed.

http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_ra ... _1987_1999

I have heard that before Stanford took off, in the 1970's and 1980's, it was basically Yale, Harvard and Chicago. Chicago was enjoying the fruits of its stranglehold on everything "and economics" and the popularity of economic conservatism in the 80's.

I have never heard it, but I think it is also possible that Columbia was probably right up there with Harvard and Yale in the 1960's and early seventies. I have heard from really old attorneys that NYU was basically a commuter school back then, and no one would choose it over Columbia. So, if you imagine the quality of students and faculty Columbia would have had with no competition from NYU, you'd agree it must have been impressive.

Also, I have heard older attorneys talk about rankings when they went to law school as if they existed back then. None of them could tell me what it was from, but I think it is safe to assume that there were still books on getting into law schools or choosing colleges back then and, even if they weren't very scientific, some of those books probably gave opinions on what the top schools were.

The attorneys & consultants over 40 I worked with this year all asked "is Columbia still #3?" Or "in the top 3?" when I told them I was going, and many retired attorneys who no longer follow rankings had the same impression. I have woefully made the correction to 4 at least seven or eight times.

There was obviously a perception in the legal public imagination that Columbia was the next line after its ivy cohorts dating to the 70s and 80s. There were some rankings but they never lasted as long or had the same breadth as USNWR. Now everyone in CA thinks stanford is the best LS in the country, and since there are 45m ppl in CA that has an impact. Also whoever mentioned endowment and land had it right.

[guano]

It's not just the rise of Silicon Valley, but also the growth of California as a whole and the rise if the 9 th circuit.
Stanford and Berkeley grads were most likely to work in Northern California, and rose up to prominent ranks, reflecting well on their schools.

Similarly, UCLA's fortunes went hand in hand with the economical rise of LA, and UT with the growth of Texas.

It's no coincidence that top schools are either in major economic hubs, or are old and in locations that used to be major economic hubs.

(Yes, there are some exceptions, but only a few)

[The Brainalist]

http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_ra ... _1987_1999

.

The attorneys & consultants over 40 I worked with this year all asked "is Columbia still #3?" Or "in the top 3?" when I told them I was going, and many retired attorneys who no longer follow rankings had the same impression. I have woefully made the correction to 4 at least seven or eight times.

There was obviously a perception in the legal public imagination that Columbia was the next line after its ivy cohorts dating to the 70s and 80s.

not to nitpick, but they would have to be more like over 50 or 60. the 40-50 crowd would have been aware of the USNWR rankings, since they mostly graduated in the 90's. Especially since USNWR had it at 5, and never at 3, throughout the 90's.

[laotze]

It's no coincidence that top schools are either in major economic hubs, or are old and in locations that used to be major economic hubs.

(Yes, there are some exceptions, but only a few)

I'd argue there are many exceptions, particularly since so many academic institutions were historically built intentionally far away from urban centers / real world distractions. A few potentials off the top of my head: Yale, UVA, Michigan, Duke (sort of), Cornell, Vanderbilt (arguable), Notre Dame, and probably around half of T1 total.

I don't think there's an exceptionally strong correlation between the quality of an academic institution and its proximity to an economic hub, not even for law school. Let's be honest: Oxford, Cambridge, and New Haven are not exactly bustling centers of economic activity, lucrative professorial tenure notwithstanding.

[guano]

The T14 are so in part because when USNWR published their first rankings, only 14 schools appeared on the first page. The relative rigidity cemented that category

^^^But who/what determined that reputation and placement?

Why one school over another? How did these elite schools begin to be elite?

Because the schools produced excellent lawyers and judges, leading prospective employers to value their graduates. This in turn led to the schools having a reputation for providing the best employment prospects, making them more desirable to prospective students. Because more students were applying than there were places, this allowed the schools to select the best and brightest, who would be given the best opportunities to do well, and thereafter going on to become top lawyers and judges.

This seems like an urban legend.

Which part? The first page thing is real, I've seen a copy. Whether that is the reason might be a legend I don't know. But if I remember correctly, the T18 has been stable as well.
Some person on the net actually compiled all the rankings from the original until now.

[The Brainalist]

It's not just the rise of Silicon Valley, but also the growth of California as a whole and the rise if the 9 th circuit.
Stanford and Berkeley grads were most likely to work in Northern California, and rose up to prominent ranks, reflecting well on their schools.

Similarly, UCLA's fortunes went hand in hand with the economical rise of LA, and UT with the growth of Texas.

It's no coincidence that top schools are either in major economic hubs, or are old and in locations that used to be major economic hubs.

(Yes, there are some exceptions, but only a few)

LoL at Berkeley rising to anything except tuition. Ranked 13th in 1990, ranked 13th in 2004, and now risen to tied for 10th with Michigan. http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_ra ... 00_present

Berkeley rises and falls like oh-so-many hackey sacks, forever tied to the availability of jobs for smart hippies.

[guano]

It's no coincidence that top schools are either in major economic hubs, or are old and in locations that used to be major economic hubs.

(Yes, there are some exceptions, but only a few)

I'd argue there are many exceptions, particularly since so many academic institutions were historically built intentionally far away from urban centers / real world distractions. A few potentials off the top of my head: Yale, UVA, Michigan, Duke (sort of), Cornell, Vanderbilt (arguable), Notre Dame, and probably around half of T1 total.

I don't think there's an exceptionally strong correlation between the quality of an academic institution and its proximity to an economic hub, not even for law school. Let's be honest: Oxford, Cambridge, and New Haven are not exactly bustling centers of economic activity, lucrative professorial tenure notwithstanding.

Wealth wasn't always centered around cities (eg UVA)
But, where that is applicable, the schools were not that far from the economic hub. Remember, the truly wealthy lived on estates a little bit out of the city, but close enough they could get in relatively quickly when needed. Likewise, they sent their kids to schools that were not too far away.
Michigan is near Detroit, Notre Dame is not that far from Chicago, Oxford and Cambridge are both close to London, Duke is near Raleigh. Princeton is about halfway between NYC and Philly, while Yale is roughly halfway between NYC and Boston.

[sinfiery]

It's not just the rise of Silicon Valley, but also the growth of California as a whole and the rise if the 9 th circuit.
Stanford and Berkeley grads were most likely to work in Northern California, and rose up to prominent ranks, reflecting well on their schools.

Similarly, UCLA's fortunes went hand in hand with the economical rise of LA, and UT with the growth of Texas.

It's no coincidence that top schools are either in major economic hubs, or are old and in locations that used to be major economic hubs.

(Yes, there are some exceptions, but only a few)

LoL at Berkeley rising to anything except tuition. Ranked 13th in 1990, ranked 13th in 2004, and now risen to tied for 10th with Michigan. http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_ra ... 00_present

Berkeley rises and falls like oh-so-many hackey sacks, forever tied to the availability of jobs for smart hippies.

That post was more general than just LS.rankings and Berkeley as.a.whole.for graduate programs is far far more prestigious than its age would.indicate

[laotze]

It's no coincidence that top schools are either in major economic hubs, or are old and in locations that used to be major economic hubs.

(Yes, there are some exceptions, but only a few)

I'd argue there are many exceptions, particularly since so many academic institutions were historically built intentionally far away from urban centers / real world distractions. A few potentials off the top of my head: Yale, UVA, Michigan, Duke (sort of), Cornell, Vanderbilt (arguable), Notre Dame, and probably around half of T1 total.

I don't think there's an exceptionally strong correlation between the quality of an academic institution and its proximity to an economic hub, not even for law school. Let's be honest: Oxford, Cambridge, and New Haven are not exactly bustling centers of economic activity, lucrative professorial tenure notwithstanding.

Wealth wasn't always centered around cities (eg UVA)
But, where that is applicable, the schools were not that far from the economic hub. Remember, the truly wealthy lived on estates a little bit out of the city, but close enough they could get in relatively quickly when needed. Likewise, they sent their kids to schools that were not too far away.
Michigan is near Detroit, Notre Dame is not that far from Chicago, Oxford and Cambridge are both close to London, Duke is near Raleigh. Princeton is about halfway between NYC and Philly, while Yale is roughly halfway between NYC and Boston.

"Close" in the 21st century, maybe, but hardly via horse and buggy or by the standards of past centuries. Even in present times most Brits consider Cambridge a very long way from London, let alone in the 1200s. Also, NYC (then only just acquired and rechristened from New Amsterdam) was not an especially important city at the time of Yale's inception. And so on et al.

Anyway, this is all kind of immaterial. Topic is still pretty unimportant vis the actual rankings

[Samara]

Though I don't think I ever would have taken the full tuition gamble on GU like I did on NU.

Neither would I and probably few should. The state of the market changes the current risk analysis for GULC, but T14 designation is about taking the long-term view. Until the Cato Institute is put in charge of the federal government, GULC is going anywhere.

[The Brainalist]

It's not just the rise of Silicon Valley, but also the growth of California as a whole and the rise if the 9 th circuit.
Stanford and Berkeley grads were most likely to work in Northern California, and rose up to prominent ranks, reflecting well on their schools.

Similarly, UCLA's fortunes went hand in hand with the economical rise of LA, and UT with the growth of Texas.

It's no coincidence that top schools are either in major economic hubs, or are old and in locations that used to be major economic hubs.

(Yes, there are some exceptions, but only a few)

LoL at Berkeley rising to anything except tuition. Ranked 13th in 1990, ranked 13th in 2004, and now risen to tied for 10th with Michigan. http://prelawhandbook.com/law_school_ra ... 00_present

Berkeley rises and falls like oh-so-many hackey sacks, forever tied to the availability of jobs for smart hippies.

That post was more general than just LS.rankings and Berkeley as.a.whole.for graduate programs is far far more prestigious than its age would.indicate

Lets please not turn this into another discussion of what "prestige" means and who has more of it. My farts are prestigious and so are the 8 million Berkeley graduates that the public school has flooded California with over the years.... yeah, yeah, yeah.

At least a rankings discussion is tethered to something, so lets keep it there.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Do we think Michigan's fall from top 5 status in the 1970s can be attributed to the decline in the economic power of the Rust Belt? Or is there some sort of mismanagement that's more to blame? It seems to be a pretty isolated case in terms of a school that was once carried a realy big stick falling to arguably, having non-top 10 employment prospects (yes I know it was only one year, but man, what a bad year).

If we're extrapolating movement in prestige based on population trends, I wonder why there was essentially no movement in Florida. You could imagine an alternate scenario in which the University of Florida rose to prominence along with (or perhaps instead of) UT and UCLA. I understand that because there's essentially no good legal jobs in FL, it never would've attracted the best students, but can someone shed so light on why it is that FL has almost no Biglaw? There are a ton of legal jobs in the state--more than DC, for example, just that none of them seem to be worth a damn.

[Miracle]

Meh, there's no hard and fast official rule for T14.

Sure there is. The national top 10 law schools -- we Americans just love top 10's -- became 14 because each and every one of them cracked the T10 at one point since USNews started publishing rankings.

For Texas or Vandy or UCLA, or...to crack the big time, they'd have to jump into the tenth spot (or better), at which time the T14 would become the T15.

This is retarded and not true. Northwestern wasn't in USNEWS top ten until well after T14 was a common term.

There are just happen to be 14 schools that are better than the rest. Stop overthinking it.

Yes it is true. He has a point. It's not called T-14 because we like number 14. It's called 14 because there is a meaning behind it. Duhhh

[Samara]

Do we think Michigan's fall from top 5 status in the 1970s can be attributed to the decline in the economic power of the Rust Belt? Or is there some sort of mismanagement that's more to blame? It seems to be a pretty isolated case in terms of a school that was once carried a realy big stick falling to arguably, having non-top 10 employment prospects (yes I know it was only one year, but man, what a bad year).

If we're extrapolating movement in prestige based on population trends, I wonder why there was essentially no movement in Florida. You could imagine an alternate scenario in which the University of Florida rose to prominence along with (or perhaps instead of) UT and UCLA. I understand that because there's essentially no good legal jobs in FL, it never would've attracted the best students, but can someone shed so light on why it is that FL has almost no Biglaw? There are a ton of legal jobs in the state--more than DC, for example, just that none of them seem to be worth a damn.

It's all old people. Doesn't take $700 an hour to draft a will for $50k in assets.

[Ti Malice]

Meh, there's no hard and fast official rule for T14.

Sure there is. The national top 10 law schools -- we Americans just love top 10's -- became 14 because each and every one of them cracked the T10 at one point since USNews started publishing rankings.

For Texas or Vandy or UCLA, or...to crack the big time, they'd have to jump into the tenth spot (or better), at which time the T14 would become the T15.

This is retarded and not true. Northwestern wasn't in USNEWS top ten until well after T14 was a common term.

There are just happen to be 14 schools that are better than the rest. Stop overthinking it.

Yes it is true. He has a point. It's not called T-14 because we like number 14. It's called 14 because there is a meaning behind it. Duhhh

What exactly is your point? DF never said there was no "meaning behind it." He's saying that none of these USNWR-based explanations account for why there is a T14. Which is true. USNWR rankings did not themselves create the idea of the T14 law schools.