Regional Powerhouses vs T14 Forum

[lawhopeful10]

dood the difference between the medians at USC and UChicago is 4 LSAT points and .18 GPA. That's like a handful of questions and a couple of Bs.

Yea and the difference between USC and Alabama is a couple LSAT points. The difference between Alabama and Maryland is a couple LSAT points. We could go all the way down the list. If like your post implies you are committed to saying the academic capabilities for lack of a better word is the same at Chicago as USC you basically are saying its the same everywhere. Sure, maybe it's not a huge difference between the two and as previously stated deciding between schools requires one to think about a variety of things however its a complete flame to act like they have the exact same average student.

[bk1]

What's with everyone going full retard on the word "same"? No reasonable person is claiming that the average person at USC and the average person at UChi are the same, because, as all you sperglords helpfully pointed out, that is objectively untrue. The point is that they are close enough that difference is immaterial for assessing your chances of getting good grades.

[Randomnumbers]

ITT: People show a lack of understanding of the importance of sample size. For any comparison of two people, the 172 vs 170 or 3.8 vs 3.9 is variance. For a comparison of a population of 200 people vs another population of 200 people, 172 v 170 is no longer variance and becomes statistically relevant. Everything else being equal, the intelligence level of a group of 200 people with a 172 will be higher than that of a group of 200 people with a 170.

The difference and the size of that gap, and the effect it has on law school performance/exams, is something else entirely.

[jbagelboy]

ITT: People show a lack of understanding of the importance of sample size. For any comparison of two people, the 172 vs 170 or 3.8 vs 3.9 is variance. For a comparison of a population of 200 people vs another population of 200 people, 172 v 170 is no longer variance and becomes statistically relevant. Everything else being equal, the intelligence level of a group of 200 people with a 172 will be higher than that of a group of 200 people with a 170.

The difference and the size of that gap, and the effect it has on law school performance/exams, is something else entirely.

Actually I did make this point several times

[John_rizzy_rawls]

TLS has taught me that Stanford and Columbia students are, on average, about a bajillion times more chill and sociable than Harvard and Chicago students.

[20141023]

.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Hi. As a rising student at UChicago, I'd just like to let everyone know that yes, we are better than USC students.

See, I like you and you're really helpful but don't do that. You're not better than anyone. You notched a couple more points on a standardized test. Relax.

[untar614]

Hi. As a rising student at UChicago, I'd just like to let everyone know that yes, we are better than USC students.

See, I like you and you're really helpful but don't do that. You're not better than anyone. You notched a couple more points on a standardized test. Relax.

OMG IKR? So not chill!




...lol

[20141023]

.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Hi. As a rising student at UChicago, I'd just like to let everyone know that yes, we are better than USC students.

See, I like you and you're really helpful but don't do that. You're not better than anyone. You notched a couple more points on a standardized test. Relax.

Wait a minute... did some sarcastic humor just slip past someone that isn't going to UChicago or Harvard? I believe that those of us here where the fun goes to die might actually be a little more chill than you think.

Whoosh on me. Thought you'd been taken over by Team RIGOR already. Guess not, good to know lol

[TheThriller]

What if your school sounds like a T-14 school? Like Samford or Northeastern?

[20141023]

.

[abl]

I agree--but what is it worth in difference? I had 70k from Duke and Northwestern. So even there what would my prospects be as opposed to top couple people at my school? I think pretty similar with no debt vs 150/200k in debt.

That's hard to say, obviously. You don't know if you're just a law school savant and might have been #2 in the class from Duke/NW. In that case, you may have made a big mistake in choosing the regional school (by limiting your fed COA options and probably losing your USSC options). More likely, though, you would have been in the top 10 or 15 students (as opposed to #3 or whatever) and it wouldn't have made a difference. Probably, your gamble -- to take the money -- worked in your favor. Like with any gamble, it's a decision that will sometimes turn out well. The question isn't whether you COULD be better off choosing the regional powerhouse, or even whether people regularly turn out better in that scenario. It's whether the risk of things not working out is justified by the money differences. For me, well, it's more important to maximize my chances of having my choice career at whatever the cost. Had I been deciding between two non-T14s, that likely woulda led to bad decisionmaking and I fully recognize that. Had I had your choice, I woulda chosen Duke/Northwestern -- for me, the marginal chance that I could get a USSC clerkship or something similar, is worth $100,000 or so, given that my chances of being able to pay that back (via LRAP or firm) from a school like Duke/NW are really pretty solid. Not everyone values opportunities like that, though -- and perhaps I overvalue them. My point, though, is that everyone's going to value them differently, so how "good" a choice is depends a lot on how much you value things like that.

[rayiner]

dood the difference between the medians at USC and UChicago is 4 LSAT points and .18 GPA. That's like a handful of questions and a couple of Bs.

Yea and the difference between USC and Alabama is a couple LSAT points. The difference between Alabama and Maryland is a couple LSAT points. We could go all the way down the list. If like your post implies you are committed to saying the academic capabilities for lack of a better word is the same at Chicago as USC you basically are saying its the same everywhere. Sure, maybe it's not a huge difference between the two and as previously stated deciding between schools requires one to think about a variety of things however its a complete flame to act like they have the exact same average student.

There is no reason for all the handwaving. It's quantifiable. 4 LSAT points = 0.4 standard deviations. High values of correlation between LSAT and class rank are 0.5-0.6. That means you can expect a difference of roughly ~0.2 standard deviations in class rank based on the difference in LSAT score. That's roughly the difference between median and top 43%.

The difference in NLJ250 placement is 28% versus 55% for C/O 2012. NLJ250 + clerkships is probably like 35% versus 70%.

This isn't just true for inside the T14 and outside the T14. Comparing NU and U Chicago, you've got a difference of roughly 5% in class rank at the median, versus a ~10% difference in NLJ250 + clerkships.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

The problem with arguing that there's no difference in the average quality of the student body at various institutions is that the argument can't maintain internal consistency. If the difference between schools ranked a couple spots apart were actually zero, you'd eventually have to argue that because A = B and B = C, that A = C, on down the line until you're saying someone's predicted place in the class is the same at Yale as it would be at Cooley.

Contrary to what TLS seems to believe, the correlation between GPA/LSAT and 1L grades does matter. They wouldn't administer the LSAT if it had no predictive power as to performance. The correlation is not strong, but it is moderate and it is meaningful. The top student in the class is usually somewhere around three times as likely to finish above median as the bottom student.

[Informative]

The difference between the super regionals (USC/UCLA, BC/BU, GW, Fordham, etc.) and the T-14 is pretty significant when you factor in the type of biglaw. T-14 are going to give you a better shot at Vault 20 firms, whereas the best tier one schools (the coastal T15-T30) give you only a small shot at those firms (albeit you will still be able to get "biglaw" hence the desirability of these schools over other non-T14 schoools, it will just be limited to Vault 25+ firms if you don't make law review).

[yot11]

The difference between the super regionals (USC/UCLA, BC/BU, GW, Fordham, etc.) and the T-14 is pretty significant when you factor in the type of biglaw. T-14 are going to give you a better shot at Vault 20 firms, whereas the best tier one schools (the coastal T15-T30) give you only a small shot at those firms (albeit you will still be able to get "biglaw" hence the desirability of these schools over other non-T14 schoools, it will just be limited to Vault 25+ firms if you don't make law review).

OP here, and this is something that I'm curious about. Will a regional school (like UCLA and USC) limit career options? Assuming you get biglaw territory class rank (say, top quartile) are you still at a disadvantage compared to above median T14 for future career/salary prospects? Not bringing in clerkships into the discussion, exclusively firms.

Basically, what is the difference between a Vault 20 firm and a firm that is not Vault 20 but also pays industry-standard biglaw 160K starting salary?

[TheThriller]

The difference between the super regionals (USC/UCLA, BC/BU, GW, Fordham, etc.) and the T-14 is pretty significant when you factor in the type of biglaw. T-14 are going to give you a better shot at Vault 20 firms, whereas the best tier one schools (the coastal T15-T30) give you only a small shot at those firms (albeit you will still be able to get "biglaw" hence the desirability of these schools over other non-T14 schoools, it will just be limited to Vault 25+ firms if you don't make law review).

No way is this true. Even for USC/UCLA/Texas/Vandy only about 30-35% of the class gets any type of big law

[Randomnumbers]

As a WUSTL person currently navigating the OCI market (not sure we count as a regional powerhouse, but we are close to that area), we really very rarely place people in V10 firms, even those that will dig relatively deep into T14 classes.

[UMich11]

The difference between the super regionals (USC/UCLA, BC/BU, GW, Fordham, etc.) and the T-14 is pretty significant when you factor in the type of biglaw. T-14 are going to give you a better shot at Vault 20 firms, whereas the best tier one schools (the coastal T15-T30) give you only a small shot at those firms (albeit you will still be able to get "biglaw" hence the desirability of these schools over other non-T14 schoools, it will just be limited to Vault 25+ firms if you don't make law review).

No way is this true. Even for USC/UCLA/Texas/Vandy only about 30-35% of the class gets any type of big law

Is this because they can't get them, or because they don't pursue them? I think it's unfair to assume they can't get them if they aren't pursuing them. Is there any good resources as to how many people are seeking them out at a school vs how many actually obtain them? I feel as though this is a better metric than simple have it/don't.

[TheThriller]

The difference between the super regionals (USC/UCLA, BC/BU, GW, Fordham, etc.) and the T-14 is pretty significant when you factor in the type of biglaw. T-14 are going to give you a better shot at Vault 20 firms, whereas the best tier one schools (the coastal T15-T30) give you only a small shot at those firms (albeit you will still be able to get "biglaw" hence the desirability of these schools over other non-T14 schoools, it will just be limited to Vault 25+ firms if you don't make law review).

No way is this true. Even for USC/UCLA/Texas/Vandy only about 30-35% of the class gets any type of big law

Is this because they can't get them, or because they don't pursue them? I think it's unfair to assume they can't get them if they aren't pursuing them. Is there any good resources as to how many people are seeking them out at a school vs how many actually obtain them? I feel as though this is a better metric than simple have it/don't.

It's because they can't get these big law jobs. Do you think students in the T15 - T20 range self select into non-big law while T14 kids self select into big law?

[UMich11]

The difference between the super regionals (USC/UCLA, BC/BU, GW, Fordham, etc.) and the T-14 is pretty significant when you factor in the type of biglaw. T-14 are going to give you a better shot at Vault 20 firms, whereas the best tier one schools (the coastal T15-T30) give you only a small shot at those firms (albeit you will still be able to get "biglaw" hence the desirability of these schools over other non-T14 schoools, it will just be limited to Vault 25+ firms if you don't make law review).

No way is this true. Even for USC/UCLA/Texas/Vandy only about 30-35% of the class gets any type of big law

Is this because they can't get them, or because they don't pursue them? I think it's unfair to assume they can't get them if they aren't pursuing them. Is there any good resources as to how many people are seeking them out at a school vs how many actually obtain them? I feel as though this is a better metric than simple have it/don't.

It's because they can't get these big law jobs. Do you think students in the T15 - T20 range self select into non-big law while T14 kids self select into big law?

I'm not saying they are, but i'm not saying they aren't. They may think they have a lower chance, and thus they self-select out of it. I don't see data proving they aren't pursuing big law, nor do i see data saying they are pursuing it and aren't successful. So i was curious if there was any data out there pointing to one or the other.

[rayiner]

The problem with arguing that there's no difference in the average quality of the student body at various institutions is that the argument can't maintain internal consistency. If the difference between schools ranked a couple spots apart were actually zero, you'd eventually have to argue that because A = B and B = C, that A = C, on down the line until you're saying someone's predicted place in the class is the same at Yale as it would be at Cooley.

Contrary to what TLS seems to believe, the correlation between GPA/LSAT and 1L grades does matter. They wouldn't administer the LSAT if it had no predictive power as to performance. The correlation is not strong, but it is moderate and it is meaningful. The top student in the class is usually somewhere around three times as likely to finish above median as the bottom student.

That's actually not that comforting. If placement were totally uncorrelated with LSAT, the top and bottom (by LSAT) students would each have a 50/50 change of finishing below median. If the top student is only 3x more likely to finish above median as the bottom student, that might be something like 75/25. So the top student still have a very significant chance (1 in 4) of finishing below median!

[The Brainalist]

This thread is dumb. If you are going to compare a T18 to a T14, compare Georgetown and USC, then it may be close. But, USC and Chicago? Difference in aptitude or not, the nation's largest firms and judges seem to overwhelmingly choose one over the other. If you don't think it is the input, then you must think that either the Chicago name or education is valued by such employers.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... =employers
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... =employers

Chicago had 14.4% in federal clerkships and 61% in firms with 25 or more attorneys while US had 39% in firms of at least that size and only 6.8% in federal clerkships. In the nation's largest firms, the difference is even more stark, with Chicago placing about double what USC does. There really can't be any doubt that USC isn't really in the same league when it comes to the things that separate the "elite" schools from those that are just "very good."

By the way, I love USC. Would have been extremely happy to go there.

[JamMasterJ]

this 25% and 40% difference is irrelevant, since Chicago students self-select to other regions of the country at a very high rate.