What seperates a Tier 1 from a Tier 3 school?

[Ryduce]

I'm sorry for asking such a seemingly stupid question,but after looking at the rankings of particular schools I don't really understand what the criteria is for taxonimizing a school's tier.

For example:I always thought of Gonzaga as a very respectable law school.It is a tier 3.Meanwhile Stetson,which I've never heard of,is a tier 1.

[MiniMao]

This isn't an exhaustive list, but a lot of what goes into ranking schools is: GPA of the students, LSAT score of the students, reputation of the school according to academics and employers.

So a Tier 1 school, on average, will have smarter students and better job prospects after graduation than a Tier 3 school.

However, once you are no longer looking at the top fourteen or so schools, it becomes less important exactly what a school's ranking is, and more important how people see it in that region. So it might often be better to go to a Tier 3 school that's the best in the state than a Tier 2 school that's behind half a dozen other schools in the area.

[philo-sophia]

What seperates a Tier 1 from a Tier 3 school?

Tier 2

[Ryduce]

lol

Touche.

[woodford]

So a Tier 1 school, on average, will have smarter students and better job prospects after graduation than a Tier 3 school.

i don't know about "smarter." certainly, on average, they have students with higher LSAT's and GPA's, but i'm not sure this means that they are "smarter"

[Grad_Student]

Just means they probably do better on standardized tests than others but I think MiniMao hit the nail on the head with outside the t14. I'd probably say outside the T25, most law schools are going to have regional reps; some better than others.

[Gators08]

Stetson is thought of as a good school (it has one of the best trial advocacy programs in the country) where as I only know of Gonzaga as being a school with a basketball team. Probably matters where you are as to what you've heard of.

But yeah, Stetson is tier 1 because it has one very excellent program.

[bmphelps]

I have been lurking/posting on this forum for a couple of days and as I've read other posts, new questions keep coming up. I am new to the law school process, but have signed up for the LSAT in June. Here are the questions:

1. I understand tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 schools, but I've also heard top 10s, 20s, 30s, etc. What is the difference between the two? For instance, Chapman Law School is a tier 3 school, but I've also heard they are not considered a "good" choice? Where would I find a ranking of law schools?

2. I STILL don't fully understand the whole LSAT curve thing...

3. If I am offered scholarships, would I only be offered from those schools to which I apply? Or assuming my scores/GPA is good enough, would I receive letters in the mail from schools offering me scholarships for which I did not even apply? And how would they even know my scores?

4. What does waitlisted mean?

I think that's it for now - thanks!

[standre2008]

I have been lurking/posting on this forum for a couple of days and as I've read other posts, new questions keep coming up. I am new to the law school process, but have signed up for the LSAT in June. Here are the questions:

1. I understand tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 schools, but I've also heard top 10s, 20s, 30s, etc. What is the difference between the two? For instance, Chapman Law School is a tier 3 school, but I've also heard they are not considered a "good" choice? Where would I find a ranking of law schools?

2. I STILL don't fully understand the whole LSAT curve thing...

3. If I am offered scholarships, would I only be offered from those schools to which I apply? Or assuming my scores/GPA is good enough, would I receive letters in the mail from schools offering me scholarships for which I did not even apply? And how would they even know my scores?

4. What does waitlisted mean?

I think that's it for now - thanks!

http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html
Thats where you'll find law school rankings...

Can't really help you with the rest of your questions...

[Mattalones]

I have been lurking/posting on this forum for a couple of days and as I've read other posts, new questions keep coming up. I am new to the law school process, but have signed up for the LSAT in June. Here are the questions:

1. I understand tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 schools, but I've also heard top 10s, 20s, 30s, etc. What is the difference between the two? For instance, Chapman Law School is a tier 3 school, but I've also heard they are not considered a "good" choice? Where would I find a ranking of law schools?

2. I STILL don't fully understand the whole LSAT curve thing...

3. If I am offered scholarships, would I only be offered from those schools to which I apply? Or assuming my scores/GPA is good enough, would I receive letters in the mail from schools offering me scholarships for which I did not even apply? And how would they even know my scores?

4. What does waitlisted mean?

I think that's it for now - thanks!

2) The curve is on LSDAS and you will become familiar with it as you take practice test, so don't worry about it because that information will present itself.

3) If you get a scholarship offer from a school to which you did not apply, assume it is shady. You have to apply to schools in order to hear anything about legit scholarships.

4) Waitlist means that they are going to let you in only if enough people turn down their acceptances and make rom for you.

[bmphelps]

Thanks so much for all your help! I posted these same questions on the Law School Admission forum and some jackass actually said I gave him a great laugh because he thought HE was a newbie, but didn't deign to answer any of the questions.

I've also been told, "I don't want to sound like a jerk but a 3.5 isn't considered a high GPA - but I guess it depends on what law school you choose" in response to my question about LSAT score tied to GPA (my UG happens to be 3.5).

I've been on this site exactly three days and am trying actually to avoid asking questions so that I am not ridiculed into feeling stupid for asking questions (which, I thought, was the whole purpose of this forum).

So, thanks guys, for not making me feel like that again.

[Mattalones]

Thanks so much for all your help! I posted these same questions on the Law School Admission forum and some jackass actually said I gave him a great laugh because he thought HE was a newbie, but didn't deign to answer any of the questions.

I've also been told, "I don't want to sound like a jerk but a 3.5 isn't considered a high GPA - but I guess it depends on what law school you choose" in response to my question about LSAT score tied to GPA (my UG happens to be 3.5).

I've been on this site exactly three days and am trying actually to avoid asking questions so that I am not ridiculed into feeling stupid for asking questions (which, I thought, was the whole purpose of this forum).

So, thanks guys, for not making me feel like that again.

Some people on here are jerks. They can be because you can't do anything about it. Whatever ... ignore them.

To answer your question about a 3.5 GPA being high or low ... that is a little like asking if 60 degrees is hot or cold: it really depends. You are right to think that it depends on which school you submit that GPA to, but it also depends on your major, on which school you come from, and on which applicant pool you are being compared against. For instance, if you are the first in you family to go to college because your family immigrated from Mexico, a 3.5 will often be considered good. However, if you come from 5 generations of Yale Law School graduates and both of your parents are brilliant professors, you really should be doing better than that. The main point is that your life context plays a significant role in assessing how "high" your GPA is.

You could also have had family issues for the first 2 years, got a 2.0, got a 4.0 after that, and then graduated with a 3.0. That would be a really "high" GPA given the context. When you apply, just play up your context and show the admissions people why your particular GPA/LSAT/prospective are stellar. If you do that well, it GPA/LSAT only matter to a certain extent.

[neskerdoo]

I have been lurking/posting on this forum for a couple of days and as I've read other posts, new questions keep coming up. I am new to the law school process, but have signed up for the LSAT in June. Here are the questions:

1. I understand tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 schools, but I've also heard top 10s, 20s, 30s, etc. What is the difference between the two? For instance, Chapman Law School is a tier 3 school, but I've also heard they are not considered a "good" choice? Where would I find a ranking of law schools?

2. I STILL don't fully understand the whole LSAT curve thing...

3. If I am offered scholarships, would I only be offered from those schools to which I apply? Or assuming my scores/GPA is good enough, would I receive letters in the mail from schools offering me scholarships for which I did not even apply? And how would they even know my scores?

4. What does waitlisted mean?

I think that's it for now - thanks!

aaaaaand, threadjacked!

[Ryduce]

It's all good.

We're all new to this,and have alot of questions.That's why this site is such an invaluable resource.

Hijack my threads all you want.

[gabbo]

The "Tier" ranking of schools is laughable for measuring the modern university system. It says nothing about the quality of education at the school. Here is what the system measures:

- The school's endowment.
- The number of research programs the school has.
- The number of graduate degree programs it offers.
- The number of faculty who have the highest degree in their fields.

Since even Tier 3-5 colleges have almost all PhD professors and offer graduate degrees, what you're really looking at with Tier 1 schools is money. If a school has a high endowment and gets a lot of research grants, it will be a Tier 1 school. Test scores of students, graduation ratings, quality of faculty, etc., have absolutely NOTHING to do with this rating.

[neskerdoo]

The "Tier" ranking of schools is laughable for measuring the modern university system. It says nothing about the quality of education at the school. Here is what the system measures:

- The school's endowment.
- The number of research programs the school has.
- The number of graduate degree programs it offers.
- The number of faculty who have the highest degree in their fields.

Since even Tier 3 and 4 colleges have almost all PhD professors and offer graduate degrees, what you're really looking at with Tier 1 schools is money. If a school has a high endowment and gets a lot of research grants, it will be a Tier 1 school. Test scores of students, graduation ratings, quality of faculty, etc., have absolutely NOTHING to do with this rating.

wow... you're lame

[WassAnch]

The "Tier" ranking of schools is laughable for measuring the modern university system. It says nothing about the quality of education at the school. Here is what the system measures:

- The school's endowment.
- The number of research programs the school has.
- The number of graduate degree programs it offers.
- The number of faculty who have the highest degree in their fields.

Since even Tier 3-5 colleges have almost all PhD professors and offer graduate degrees, what you're really looking at with Tier 1 schools is money. If a school has a high endowment and gets a lot of research grants, it will be a Tier 1 school. Test scores of students, graduation ratings, quality of faculty, etc., have absolutely NOTHING to do with this rating.

Have you even bothered to look at how the rankings are calculated? GPA, LSAT scores, and peer assessment scores account for a lot.

Anyways, Tier one schools are the schools ranked 1-50. US News has dropped the second tier and considers all schools ranked 1-100 to be tier one (they skip the second tier, but I think that most people still consider 51-100 tier 2).

Tier 3 and 4 schools generally aren't publicly ranked within their respective tiers.

[Cole S. Law]

So a Tier 1 school, on average, will have smarter students and better job prospects after graduation than a Tier 3 school.

i don't know about "smarter." certainly, on average, they have students with higher LSAT's and GPA's, but i'm not sure this means that they are "smarter"

At some point, you may have to admit that someone somewhere is smarter than you.

[soullesswonder]

The "Tier" ranking of schools is laughable for measuring the modern university system. It says nothing about the quality of education at the school. Here is what the system measures:

- The school's endowment.
- The number of research programs the school has.
- The number of graduate degree programs it offers.
- The number of faculty who have the highest degree in their fields.

Since even Tier 3-5 colleges have almost all PhD professors and offer graduate degrees, what you're really looking at with Tier 1 schools is money. If a school has a high endowment and gets a lot of research grants, it will be a Tier 1 school. Test scores of students, graduation ratings, quality of faculty, etc., have absolutely NOTHING to do with this rating.

You do realize this is TOP LAW SCHOOLS, right? Nobody ITT cares about the research rankings of the general institutions. First Post Fail.

[AJaKe]

Why was a thread from 2008 resurrected?

[Spaceman_Stiff]

Why was a thread from 2008 resurrected?

I don't know, but let us keep it going.

F B

[Z'Barron]

I'm sorry for asking such a seemingly stupid question,but after looking at the rankings of particular schools I don't really understand what the criteria is for taxonimizing a school's tier.

For example:I always thought of Gonzaga as a very respectable law school.It is a tier 3.Meanwhile Stetson,which I've never heard of,is a tier 1.

Very little. to be honest. except for the self-fulfilling prophesy that the rankings have created in employment prospects. for example, I know many of Seattle's top attorneys hail from Gonzaga and Seattle-U...millionaires, mind you. And they don't know anything about the rankings. To them, any Washington college student who doesn't at least consider UW, SU and Gonzaga, whether they have a shot at Harvard or not, is a fool. On the inside, these schoos are not much differnt from each other...and it was once respectable for a 3.9 UW grad with a 95th percentile LSAT score (or no score at all, for those who graduated when it was just an application and essay) to go to Gonzaga or SU. Now? Nobody with such a profile would even consider it.

The rankings arise from, either, a noble attempt to create the best product for consumers, or an elitist attempt to wipe minorities out of the game completely. I haven't made up my mind about it yet. Either way, the rankings have failed, and, thus, ruined graduate education.

[Belili]

I'm sorry for asking such a seemingly stupid question,but after looking at the rankings of particular schools I don't really understand what the criteria is for taxonimizing a school's tier.

For example:I always thought of Gonzaga as a very respectable law school.It is a tier 3.Meanwhile Stetson,which I've never heard of,is a tier 1.

Very little. to be honest. except for the self-fulfilling prophesy that the rankings have created in employment prospects. for example, I know many of Seattle's top attorneys hail from Gonzaga and Seattle-U...millionaires, mind you. And they don't know anything about the rankings. To them, any Washington college student who doesn't at least consider UW, SU and Gonzaga, whether they have a shot at Harvard or not, is a fool. On the inside, these schoos are not much differnt from each other...and it was once respectable for a 3.9 UW grad with a 95th percentile LSAT score (or no score at all, for those who graduated when it was just an application and essay) to go to Gonzaga or SU. Now? Nobody with such a profile would even consider it.

The rankings arise from, either, a noble attempt to create the best product for consumers, or an elitist attempt to wipe minorities out of the game completely. I haven't made up my mind about it yet. Either way, the rankings have failed, and, thus, ruined graduate education.

"Last visited: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:28 pm"

I doubt he'll read your answer to his question.

[Spaceman_Stiff]

I'm sorry for asking such a seemingly stupid question,but after looking at the rankings of particular schools I don't really understand what the criteria is for taxonimizing a school's tier.

For example:I always thought of Gonzaga as a very respectable law school.It is a tier 3.Meanwhile Stetson,which I've never heard of,is a tier 1.

Very little. to be honest. except for the self-fulfilling prophesy that the rankings have created in employment prospects. for example, I know many of Seattle's top attorneys hail from Gonzaga and Seattle-U...millionaires, mind you. And they don't know anything about the rankings. To them, any Washington college student who doesn't at least consider UW, SU and Gonzaga, whether they have a shot at Harvard or not, is a fool. On the inside, these schoos are not much differnt from each other...and it was once respectable for a 3.9 UW grad with a 95th percentile LSAT score (or no score at all, for those who graduated when it was just an application and essay) to go to Gonzaga or SU. Now? Nobody with such a profile would even consider it.

The rankings arise from, either, a noble attempt to create the best product for consumers, or an elitist attempt to wipe minorities out of the game completely. I haven't made up my mind about it yet. Either way, the rankings have failed, and, thus, ruined graduate education.

"Last visited: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:28 pm"

I doubt he'll read your answer to his question.

Probably for the best for the OP's sake...

[A'nold]

I'm sorry for asking such a seemingly stupid question,but after looking at the rankings of particular schools I don't really understand what the criteria is for taxonimizing a school's tier.

For example:I always thought of Gonzaga as a very respectable law school.It is a tier 3.Meanwhile Stetson,which I've never heard of,is a tier 1.

Very little. to be honest. except for the self-fulfilling prophesy that the rankings have created in employment prospects. for example, I know many of Seattle's top attorneys hail from Gonzaga and Seattle-U...millionaires, mind you. And they don't know anything about the rankings. To them, any Washington college student who doesn't at least consider UW, SU and Gonzaga, whether they have a shot at Harvard or not, is a fool. On the inside, these schoos are not much differnt from each other...and it was once respectable for a 3.9 UW grad with a 95th percentile LSAT score (or no score at all, for those who graduated when it was just an application and essay) to go to Gonzaga or SU. Now? Nobody with such a profile would even consider it.

The rankings arise from, either, a noble attempt to create the best product for consumers, or an elitist attempt to wipe minorities out of the game completely. I haven't made up my mind about it yet. Either way, the rankings have failed, and, thus, ruined graduate education.

I agree with this. I hate the rankings. When I was accepted to SU Law a few years ago my Grandmother was bragging to all of her friends and when they asked her about or when I mentioned UW she would say, "SU is a FAR better school". When her kids were looking at colleges, SU was more prestigeous than UW. Gonzaga also carries with it some lay prestige in the state. However, it is pretty much UW or bust for the top jobs. Sucks IMO. Regionally, regional schools should be able to carry more weight than what USNEWS allows. I wish USNWR would only rank the top 20 schools nationally, that way there would not be the stupid numbers manipulation that we see in the t2/3/4 schools.