Top Law Schools

Iowa, with a median LSAT of 161, is the 26th ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Colorado, ranked 38th, and SMU, ranked 48th, both have median LSATs at 164. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally smarter here than at Iowa (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Iowa is a Big Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the University of Denver or Iowa? He has never watched collegiate ice hockey, so he says, Iowa of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Iowa is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Iowa does have better job placement and the students in Iowa are generally smarter (161 vs 159), but DU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Iowa.

Both schools are great. Iowa has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Iowa will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Iowa may be a better school than Denver, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to CU because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to CU and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at DU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

mrwarre85 wrote:Iowa, with a median LSAT of 161, is the 26th ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Colorado, ranked 38th, and SMU, ranked 48th, both have median LSATs at 164. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally smarter here than at Iowa (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Iowa is a Big Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the University of Denver or Iowa? He has never watched collegiate ice hockey, so he says, Iowa of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Iowa is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Iowa does have better job placement and the students in Iowa are generally smarter (161 vs 159), but DU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Iowa.

Both schools are great. Iowa has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Iowa will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Iowa may be a better school than Denver, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to CU because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to CU and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at DU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

They ask old judges and lawyers... you know, those people that hire you when you graduate.

iowa has way more books in its libraries than denver, case closed

the assumption train:

I guess I'm not clear on the part about digging deep and finding that LSAT determines salary to some extent.. Clarify further? I mean I can see the point in terms of having a high LAST and getting into a top school -> better chance at higher salary or going to lesser school with a comparatively high LSAT -> increased comparative chance of getting a high paying job in relation to other students at the school, but then there are also equal anecdotes where the opposite would apply- to use your point about CU v. IOWA, the a student at median LSAT at CU, even though that median is higher than at IOWA (taking what you have reported for stats at face value), will have less of a shot at a high paying job than the Iowa student with the Iowa median score because Iowa does probably tend to place better overall than CU with jobs. So while your theory may hold true if limited to within school (infra) comparisons of students to one another- that the higher LSATs coming in by definition have a better likelihood of comparative success at the school to some extent therefore in likely eventual earnings coming out of school (though of course any trends are not always individually proved to be the case)- this idea breaks down considerably when comparing LSAT scores more generally or across schools I think (although there is the general trend of higher score -> better school -> likely better initial salary): in addition to the hypo regarding CU v. Iowa chances for getting a good paying job v. comparative LSAT, there is another hypo cutting against your analysis which is where a high-scorer in terms of overall LSAT takers goes to a school that is a reach for him or her. In that case clearly the within school comparison would be a dominating predictor rather than trying to analyze the person's chances are for succeeding based on how objectively good his or her score was overall... Not sure if this analysis hits or misses your suggestion which is part of why I asked for clarification about what exactly you are suggesting.. I think you are making the point about LSAT being significant in predicting earning capacity and pondering how this may be at odds with ranking of schools; I understand the point and imagine there is some form of correlation of LSAT with predictive earning capacity (and perhaps inversely market-value of the employee) but I think the correlation is likely vague and that it probably would apply primarily to within school comparison since employers probably do value some schools with lower LSAT medians more highly than other schools with higher medians, and since other regionality and market factors definitely come into play.

DieAntwoord wrote:the assumption train:

LOL

Umm... Lolwut

Lawquacious wrote:I guess I'm not clear on the part about digging deep and finding that LSAT determines salary to some extent.. Clarify further? I mean I can see the point in terms of having a high LAST and getting into a top school -> better chance at higher salary or going to lesser school with a comparatively high LSAT -> increased comparative chance of getting a high paying job in relation to other students at the school, but then there are also equal anecdotes where the opposite would apply- to use your point about CU v. IOWA, the a student at median LSAT at CU, even though that median is higher than at IOWA (taking what you have reported for stats at face value), will have less of a shot at a high paying job than the Iowa student with the Iowa median score because Iowa does probably tend to place better overall than CU with jobs. So while your theory may hold true if limited to within school (infra) comparisons of students to one another- that the higher LSATs coming in by definition have a better likelihood of comparative success at the school to some extent therefore in likely eventual earnings coming out of school (though of course any trends are not always individually proved to be the case)- this idea breaks down considerably when comparing LSAT scores more generally or across schools I think (although there is the general trend of higher score -> better school -> likely better initial salary): in addition to the hypo regarding CU v. Iowa chances for getting a good paying job v. comparative LSAT, there is another hypo cutting against your analysis which is where a high-scorer in terms of overall LSAT takers goes to a school that is a reach for him or her. In that case clearly the within school comparison would be a dominating predictor rather than trying to analyze the person's chances are for succeeding based on how objectively good his or her score was overall... Not sure if this analysis hits or misses your suggestion which is part of why I asked for clarification about what exactly you are suggesting.. I think you are making the point about LSAT being significant in predicting earning capacity and pondering how this may be at odds with ranking of schools; I understand the point and imagine there is some form of correlation of LSAT with predictive earning capacity (and perhaps inversely market-value of the employee) but I think the correlation is likely vague and that it probably would apply primarily to within school comparison since employers probably do value some schools with lower LSAT medians more highly than other schools with higher medians, and since other regionality and market factors definitely come into play.

I agree completely. Your point on Iowa VS Colorado is right on, prehaps easier to be at the median and have a higher salery. You have added layers and made it more complex, although I woudln't say that the "idea breaks down." Bottom line is that yes, schools that may be overrated by one definition or the other may still have better job placement.

Thank the football team though, not the professors.

lawschooliseasy wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:Iowa, with a median LSAT of 161, is the 26th ranked school in the country. It is a fine school, and has been around for a long time.

Colorado, ranked 38th, and SMU, ranked 48th, both have median LSATs at 164. They are both fine schools, they have both been around for a long time, and the kids are generally smarter here than at Iowa (LSAT is an accepted aptitude test).

So why don't the rankings reflect that? Because Iowa is a Big Ten school, and has a great football team.

Something like 1/3 or 40% of USNWR law school rankings are determined from peer reviews. They ask some old judge somewhere, hey what is a better school, the University of Denver or Iowa? He has never watched collegiate ice hockey, so he says, Iowa of course.

Now many of you might say well hey, Iowa is a better school. Honestly I'm not sure, because it really depends on how you define your terms. Iowa does have better job placement and the students in Iowa are generally smarter (161 vs 159), but DU has terrific professors and a great programs just like Iowa.

Both schools are great. Iowa has better job placement because it has a great football team, so people have heard of it. But that is only something you have to consider if you may want to move around a lot, and think that Iowa will jump off the resume because of the name recognition. The truth is that it will help, marginally, but you really get jobs because of how well you network and how advanced your interpersonal skills are (and that goes for getting interviews and getting jobs).

Really, Iowa may be a better school than Denver, but it would not be way better like the rankings suggest.

Now, what people on this board don’t talk much about is that job placement stats are screwy in one important way. If you really dig deep, you will find that LSAT is a predictor for salary too, whether you went to DU or, say, the University of Colorado, ranked 40 spots above. You hear a lot of: No, I will go to CU because the job statistics are better. They are better, because the students are better, but if you went to CU and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at DU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

They ask old judges and lawyers... you know, those people that hire you when you graduate.

Your right, but I think the help it provides is marginal, and may not be worth it (especially if you took on an extra 100k in debt to have that advantage).

mrwarre85 wrote:...if you went to CU and finished say, top 40% in your class, you would not have finished top 40% at DU. You would have finished top 10%, and gotten the same job (or potentially a better job if doing well at LS gave you a needed confidence boost).

Logic fail, bro, logic fail. [Also See Assumption Train above]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528

Better rankings.

Lawquacious wrote:I guess I'm not clear on the part about digging deep and finding that LSAT determines salary to some extent.. Clarify further? I mean I can see the point in terms of having a high LAST and getting into a top school -> better chance at higher salary or going to lesser school with a comparatively high LSAT -> increased comparative chance of getting a high paying job in relation to other students at the school, but then there are also equal anecdotes where the opposite would apply- to use your point about CU v. IOWA, the a student at median LSAT at CU, even though that median is higher than at IOWA (taking what you have reported for stats at face value), will have less of a shot at a high paying job than the Iowa student with the Iowa median score because Iowa does probably tend to place better overall than CU with jobs. So while your theory may hold true if limited to within school (infra) comparisons of students to one another- that the higher LSATs coming in by definition have a better likelihood of comparative success at the school to some extent therefore in likely eventual earnings coming out of school (though of course any trends are not always individually proved to be the case)- this idea breaks down considerably when comparing LSAT scores more generally or across schools I think (although there is the general trend of higher score -> better school -> likely better initial salary): in addition to the hypo regarding CU v. Iowa chances for getting a good paying job v. comparative LSAT, there is another hypo cutting against your analysis which is where a high-scorer in terms of overall LSAT takers goes to a school that is a reach for him or her. In that case clearly the within school comparison would be a dominating predictor rather than trying to analyze the person's chances are for succeeding based on how objectively good his or her score was overall... Not sure if this analysis hits or misses your suggestion which is part of why I asked for clarification about what exactly you are suggesting.. I think you are making the point about LSAT being significant in predicting earning capacity and pondering how this may be at odds with ranking of schools; I understand the point and imagine there is some form of correlation of LSAT with predictive earning capacity (and perhaps inversely market-value of the employee) but I think the correlation is likely vague and that it probably would apply primarily to within school comparison since employers probably do value some schools with lower LSAT medians more highly than other schools with higher medians, and since other regionality and market factors definitely come into play.

So many words. Sooooo many words.