Any Law Schools UNDER/OVERrated??? Forum

[romothesavior]

In preparing for finals, I compared/contrasted my outlines with several commerical ones from Harvard, NYU, Columbia, etc.

It's, like, all the same.

#rankingsarecontinuouslyperpetuatedillusionswheninfactwearealllearningthesamematerial

Face, meet palm.

[introversional]

In preparing for finals, I compared/contrasted my outlines with several commerical ones from Harvard, NYU, Columbia, etc.

It's, like, all the same.

#rankingsarecontinuouslyperpetuatedillusionswheninfactwearealllearningthesamematerial

This is what I read:

"Schools ranked 1-6 are practically the same, which proves that 1-200 all are."

Also, of course we're all learning the same material. It's not like there's some form of mathematics that only the Ivy League schools teach, either.

I know. I'm exaggerating. But still, with regards to the quality of what is being taught/learned, there's not as much difference between the top 30-40 and T6 as popular TLS sentiment suggests.

[kwais]

you are saying that because the material is the same the rankings are illusions? Do you factor job placement into this genius theory?

[vanwinkle]

I know. I'm exaggerating. But still, with regards to the quality of what is being taught/learned, there's not as much difference between the top 30-40 and T6 as popular TLS sentiment suggests.

What? Most people aren't addressing the quality of education when they're talking about differences between schools. There's an enormous gap between the value of a T6 school vs. a T30, but not because what you learn in the classrooms is substantially different.

[romothesavior]

I know. I'm exaggerating. But still, with regards to the quality of what is being taught/learned, there's not as much difference between the top 30-40 and T6 as popular TLS sentiment suggests.

You must be new here. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that. TLS has a lot of "nuggets of collective wisdom," but this isn't one of them.

The difference between a T6 school and a T40 school isn't the material. We're all mostly learning the same shit The difference between a T6 and a T20, 30, 40, etc. is in job prospects

[TaipeiMort]

Underrated: byu, Notre Dame, Texas.

Overrated: Emory, WashU, Indiana, Illinois, Berkeley.

[romothesavior]

I know. I'm exaggerating. But still, with regards to the quality of what is being taught/learned, there's not as much difference between the top 30-40 and T6 as popular TLS sentiment suggests.

What? Most people aren't addressing the quality of education when they're talking about differences between schools. There's an enormous gap between the value of a T6 school vs. a T30, but not because what you learn in the classrooms is substantially different.

8 year olds, dude.

[BeautifulSW]

There is a school of thought (as expressed by Justice Scalia) that the biggest difference between HYS and the rest of the legal education universe is the quality of the applicants the really top schools attract. This isn't just speculation; there is a close statistical correlation between LSAT scores, UGPA, and first time Bar exam performance. There is a much weaker correlation between rank of school and Bar exam performance once you adjust the data for the students' indicia of quality.

I am basing this largely but not entirely on a study done some years ago at the behest of the Texas Bar.

On that basis, you could argue that the choice of law school itself is objectively irrelevant so ALL of them are "overrated". But there is no escaping the employability factor.

[romothesavior]

There is a school of thought (as expressed by Justice Scalia) that the biggest difference between HYS and the rest of the legal education universe is the quality of the applicants the really top schools attract. This isn't just speculation; there is a close statistical correlation between LSAT scores, UGPA, and first time Bar exam performance. There is a much weaker correlation between rank of school and Bar exam performance once you adjust the data for the students' indicia of quality.

Ehh... I am skeptical. HYS (especially Y and S because their process is more holistic) have the very best, brightest, most accomplished law students out there. But once you get past that very cream of the crop, things start to get fuzzy. A school with a median of say 173 doesn't have that much smarter students than one with a 170 or 168 average. The difference between a couple of LSAT points once you get that high is just a few questions on the LSAT. Sure, a person with a 170 is probably way smarter than someone with a 150, but the difference in student profiles at schools like Michigan and Vanderbilt are not that much different.

[BeautifulSW]

I share your skepticism. After 25+ years in the profession, and hiring and training young lawyers from a good many law schools, my unscientific impression is that the school's rank makes far less difference than class rank when trying to weed people out. I finally got to where I give HEAVY consideration to an applicant in the top third of his/her class, even in one case where the applicant came from a California Bar accredited school. I am by no means convinced that a top third grad from, say, U. South Dakota is necessarily inferior to a bottom third grad from Georgetown. (I've never hired from HYS and so must allow for the possibility of superhuman abilities from the cream of the cream). (Yeah, right.)

I'm not even so sure that the University Law School model is itself necessary or even a good idea. A very few states allow for "reading the law". Results are mixed; such people don't pass the Bar easily in California but do pass in Washington State. One difference between the two is that WA has a much stricter set of pre-law education requirements than does CA. OTOH, the sample sizes are tiny so conclusions probably shouldn't be drawn just yet.

More research is needed but unlikely to be funded since there's a good chance the results would expose the purely superstitious nature of "rankings". Nobody wants THAT.

[introversional]

I share your skepticism. After 25+ years in the profession, and hiring and training young lawyers from a good many law schools, my unscientific impression is that the school's rank makes far less difference than class rank when trying to weed people out. I finally got to where I give HEAVY consideration to an applicant in the top third of his/her class, even in one case where the applicant came from a California Bar accredited school. I am by no means convinced that a top third grad from, say, U. South Dakota is necessarily inferior to a bottom third grad from Georgetown. (I've never hired from HYS and so must allow for the possibility of superhuman abilities from the cream of the cream). (Yeah, right.)

I'm not even so sure that the University Law School model is itself necessary or even a good idea. A very few states allow for "reading the law". Results are mixed; such people don't pass the Bar easily in California but do pass in Washington State. One difference between the two is that WA has a much stricter set of pre-law education requirements than does CA. OTOH, the sample sizes are tiny so conclusions probably shouldn't be drawn just yet.

More research is needed but unlikely to be funded since there's a good chance the results would expose the purely superstitious nature of "rankings". Nobody wants THAT.

...And who would pay 50k/year at several of the schools that rely on rankings were it not for... superstitious feelings towards rankings?

Oh but there's "jobs" data... totally legit statistic of course.

[romothesavior]

I share your skepticism. After 25+ years in the profession, and hiring and training young lawyers from a good many law schools, my unscientific impression is that the school's rank makes far less difference than class rank when trying to weed people out.

That's cool dude, but it doesn't change the fact that most hiring people (particularly those at the best and highest-paying firms/agencies) do not agree with you. They hire from the best schools, and it is therefore (all things being equal) stupid to go to a school that doesn't maximize job prospects.

[dixiecupdrinking]

I don't think this is all that different from higher education in general. There may be some variation in the quality of learning between an average state university and an Ivy school for undergrad, but most of the value conferred by the Ivy degree is due to 1) signalling effects and 2) networking with other people who will have advantages in life, because of this signalling effect and because they come from advantaged backgrounds.

It's all dropping a hundred fifty grand on an education you coulda gotten for a dollah fifty in late chahges at the public library.

[headandshoulderos]

Van Winkle, would you say that all things remaining equal (no regional preference or ties to each market) then you go to the school that places best in biglaw?

I should have said all things remaining equal. With that caveat, I think that my advice is fairly good.
All things are not equal. Regional preference and ties to market are enormous factors in hiring, and the real point of going to law school is to get a job as a lawyer (for most people anyway). If you're talking about a non-T14 that isn't in a region you want to work, and you have no ties to anywhere else, then you should just not go to law school.

i agree if you want to play the odds, but it's not impossible to go to a T30 outside your home market and get back home. you have to have good WE, grades, and very strong ties to your home market (like you went to college and HS there), but it's not impossible. it's a tough call because while I agree with you, if I had followed this advice I wouldnt be in law school with a job lined up...

[vanwinkle]

I share your skepticism. After 25+ years in the profession, and hiring and training young lawyers from a good many law schools, my unscientific impression is that the school's rank makes far less difference than class rank when trying to weed people out.

That's cool dude, but it doesn't change the fact that most hiring people (particularly those at the best and highest-paying firms/agencies) do not agree with you. They hire from the best schools, and it is therefore (all things being equal) stupid to go to a school that doesn't maximize job prospects.

I don't think they disagree, actually, I think it's just not relevant to the current discussion. If you're talking about long-term success of people in the industry, yes, grades probably correlated to success more than school did. I'd bet that people at HLS with truly shitty grades tended to leave the legal industry more often, and people at the top of the class in a T100 tended to do have long respectable legal careers.

But right now we're in an economy that doesn't allow that kind of thing. Things have changed, it's no longer an either/or thing. It's no longer true that a good school or good grades could get you a decent starting job and a chance to prove yourself. Now you need both just to get into the industry in the first place.

[WSJ_Law]

GWU Fordham Emory are overrattted

[BeautifulSW]

Oh, yes. Superstitions are powerful even if they are false. As I said before, you can't escape the employability issue.

[vanwinkle]

Oh, yes. Superstitions are powerful even if they are false. As I said before, you can't escape the employability issue.

Who said anything about superstitions?

[FeelTheHeat]

What is with people who have devito in their tars being shitty posters

[romothesavior]

What is with people who have devito in their tars being shitty posters

Larry David too.

[FeelTheHeat]

What is with people who have devito in their tars being shitty posters

Larry David too.

also, mad men characters

[AreJay711]

I know the conversation has moved away from this but going by the school that sends most people to biglaw is probably a bad idea. Going to your state flagship with in-state tuition is probably better than anything but the top 14 top 6 HYS. Biglaw probably isn't what you really want to do -- except for the necessity of paying off 200K in loans part and in some instances the schools aren't any better in reputation, networking, or overall employment but are just in a part of the country with more large firms around.

[murray18]

I don't think this is all that different from higher education in general. There may be some variation in the quality of learning between an average state university and an Ivy school for undergrad, but most of the value conferred by the Ivy degree is due to 1) signalling effects and 2) networking with other people who will have advantages in life, because of this signalling effect and because they come from advantaged backgrounds.

It's all dropping a hundred fifty grand on an education you coulda gotten for a dollah fifty in late chahges at the public library.

But at least I'll be original.

[Bronte]

...And who would pay 50k/year at several of the schools that rely on rankings were it not for... superstitious feelings towards rankings?

Oh but there's "jobs" data... totally legit statistic of course.

What are you talking about? The ability to get a legal job and the quality of the legal job you can get is all that matters. While there are too few employment statistics and the statistics that do exist are flawed, no one with even a shred of credibility disputes that employment prospects drop precipitously when you get outside the top 10-20 schools.

[Mal Reynolds]

I actually have a question that might get this thread back to the original topic: is it Berkeley's fault it's overrated?

Can the drop in its reputation be due to more than the California job market and the UC system craziness (Im sure these problems are interrelated)? Is B is no longer a peer of MVP at all? I still hold the school in very high esteem, but that's nothing more than lay prestige talk, so I'm curious what others think.