Is the quality of education at T-14 schools really better. Forum

[Mibalase]

'cause maybe some firms care more about moving up in their Vault rankings! and having 90% of
HCC grads aint gonna do it, top lawyers will

I think you are confused about what top lawyers means bro.

I'm not.

[Mibalase]

On a side note, some TTT's are better prepared for lawyer work from the start then T1

And some T1s are better prepared for lawyer work than some TTTs.*






* I think It's completely idiotic to identify people by rank of the school they attended.

good point.

[kittenmittons]

On a side note, some TTT's are better prepared for lawyer work from the start then T1

And some T1s are better prepared for lawyer work than some TTTs.*






* I think It's completely idiotic to identify people by rank of the school they attended.

What is a T1?

[ccs224]

You might get a better quality of education because you'll have a higher quality of peers.

+1

As both a teacher and a long-time student, I can attest that the quality of your fellow students is one of the most important factors in having a strong education.

[Mibalase]

On a side note, some TTT's are better prepared for lawyer work from the start then T1

And some T1s are better prepared for lawyer work than some TTTs.*






* I think It's completely idiotic to identify people by rank of the school they attended.

What is a T1?

schools ranked 1-50

there is a forum that explains all the abv.

[09042014]

Yes, he/she certainly could be a better classmate. But he most likely is not. If you had to select a class of, say, 400 students, and wanted to get the most intelligent/stimulating people who would contribute most to class discussion, and couldn't hold mock classes for every applicant, how would you choose? My guess is previous academic record and standardized test scores.

I'd also add that while GPA/LSAT are big components that's not all. Top schools often have people with very strong softs.

That's why NW has interviews.

I wouldn't be surprised if the new hiring trend at v100 has a larger percentage of students from lower ranked schools for the simple reason that if I'm only going to hire x% of what I used to hire might as well get the best we can regardless of prestige.

On a side note, some TTT's are better prepared for lawyer work from the start then T1

LOL, NU took me, and I'm a social retard.

Law firms are now going to prestige whore more than ever. Firms can now get HYS CCN students that they couldn't before. And why would they purposely go lower when the pay is the same anyway?

2011 OCI rumors showed that T14 schools held up so-so, but schools like Illinois and Notre Dame got rocked.

'cause maybe some firms care more about moving up in their Vault rankings! and having 90% of
HCC grads aint gonna do it, top lawyers will

Customers like prestige. They can't tell if the DePaul grad is a better lawyer than the UChi, but they can tell which is a better school.

Also I don't think firms can even judge how good a hire is based on grades anyway. Studying law and practicing is pretty different from what I hear.

So they hire on prestige, then make the ones who do well partner.

[kittenmittons]

Customers like prestige. They can't tell if the DePaul grad is a better lawyer than the UChi, but they can tell which is a better school.

Also I don't think firms can even judge how good a hire is based on grades anyway. Studying law and practicing is pretty different from what I hear.

So they hire on prestige, then make the ones who do well partner.

tbf, most laypeople don't even know UChi exists

[Anastasia Dee Dualla]

Customers like prestige. They can't tell if the DePaul grad is a better lawyer than the UChi, but they can tell which is a better school.

Also I don't think firms can even judge how good a hire is based on grades anyway. Studying law and practicing is pretty different from what I hear.

So they hire on prestige, then make the ones who do well partner.

Actually I have a friend who goes to DePaul and she beat out someone from UChi and Harvard for a job. Just goes to show that rankings mean very little. I'm inclined to think Cooley's rankings have some merit.

[09042014]

Customers like prestige. They can't tell if the DePaul grad is a better lawyer than the UChi, but they can tell which is a better school.

Also I don't think firms can even judge how good a hire is based on grades anyway. Studying law and practicing is pretty different from what I hear.

So they hire on prestige, then make the ones who do well partner.

tbf, most laypeople don't even know UChi exists

Yea I was going to use NU, but then I realized it made me look like a dick so I used Chicago. Fail on my part.

[09042014]

Customers like prestige. They can't tell if the DePaul grad is a better lawyer than the UChi, but they can tell which is a better school.

Also I don't think firms can even judge how good a hire is based on grades anyway. Studying law and practicing is pretty different from what I hear.

So they hire on prestige, then make the ones who do well partner.

Actually I have a friend who goes to DePaul and she beat out someone from UChi and Harvard for a job. Just goes to show that rankings mean very little. I'm inclined to think Cooley's rankings have some merit.

Trolled by Dee! This makes my day.

[Mibalase]

[quote/]
Customers like prestige. They can't tell if the DePaul grad is a better lawyer than the UChi, but they can tell which is a better school.

Also I don't think firms can even judge how good a hire is based on grades anyway. Studying law and practicing is pretty different from what I hear.

So they hire on prestige, then make the ones who do well partner.[/quote]

Which is precisely the reason why some top 2% HYSCCN will not get call backs and a top 30% uva or Duke will

[Anastasia Dee Dualla]

.

[OneKnight]

HYS > CCN > MVPBNDC > GV Tex LA > USC WUSTL > T30ish > T40ish > t2 >teverything else.

In terms of quality of student Gtown would be with MVPBDNC.

Fixed, unless you think USC is equivalent to Wake or American or something crazy like that ><

[09042014]

HYS > CCN > MVPBNDC > GV Tex LA > USC WUSTL > T30ish > T40ish > t2 >teverything else.

In terms of quality of student Gtown would be with MVPBDNC.

Fixed, unless you think USC is equivalent to Wake or American or something crazy like that ><

WUSTL isn't any better than Minn, or Illinois, or Notre Dame.

To be honest I'm not sure how USC places in LA. If it is approacing UCLA status, then it should be with UCLA.

WF would have been on the other side of T40ish.

[de5igual]

As far as i am concerned all the schools ranked 1-10 in USNEWS should really all be ranked the same..and 10-20..being the same...and so on....they shd not be ranked from 1 to whatever..Put them in categories with all
schools in a certain category ranked equal...

Category1 - Harvard, NYU, Chicago, Boalt, Yale.........etc.........No numbers associated with them
Category2 -WUSTL, Vandy, Cornell, etc
Cat 3---UIUC, Minnesota, Emory, etc

This doesn't match hiring trends, or student quality ranking by numbers.

Cornell places about as well as Boalt does, and Wustl places nowhere near where Cornell does.

HYS > CCN > MVPBNDC > GV Tex LA > t17-T40ish >t2 >teverything else.

In terms of quality of student Gtown would be with MVPBDNC.

also in terms of student quality, C would be together with UT/UCLA/Vandy along with any other T20s with similar numbers

[OneKnight]

HYS > CCN > MVPBNDC > GV Tex LA > USC WUSTL > T30ish > T40ish > t2 >teverything else.

In terms of quality of student Gtown would be with MVPBDNC.

Fixed, unless you think USC is equivalent to Wake or American or something crazy like that ><

WUSTL isn't any better than Minn, or Illinois, or Notre Dame.

To be honest I'm not sure how USC places in LA. If it is approacing UCLA status, then it should be with UCLA.

WF would have been on the other side of T40ish.

OK, I'll grant you WUSTL, but USC places only slightly worse than UCLA (in LA).

[09042014]

As far as i am concerned all the schools ranked 1-10 in USNEWS should really all be ranked the same..and 10-20..being the same...and so on....they shd not be ranked from 1 to whatever..Put them in categories with all
schools in a certain category ranked equal...

Category1 - Harvard, NYU, Chicago, Boalt, Yale.........etc.........No numbers associated with them
Category2 -WUSTL, Vandy, Cornell, etc
Cat 3---UIUC, Minnesota, Emory, etc

This doesn't match hiring trends, or student quality ranking by numbers.

Cornell places about as well as Boalt does, and Wustl places nowhere near where Cornell does.

HYS > CCN > MVPBNDC > GV Tex LA > t17-T40ish >t2 >teverything else.

In terms of quality of student Gtown would be with MVPBDNC.

also in terms of student quality, C would be together with UT/UCLA/Vandy along with any other T20s with similar numbers

Boalt as well.

[observationalist]

[Vandy 3L sitting in NYU Law Library for the afternoon, taking questions]...

Agreed on the points about education quality vs what's important in deciding where to go (job prospects). USNews can serve as a rough proxy for different factors like student/faculty quality and job prospects, but prospectives should really only use the rankings as an introduction to their research in deciding where to go. As of now there is not an adequate amount of information available to prospectives regarding job prospects, but there are plenty of comparisons involving faculty quality comparisons. This is probably because legal faculty care more about legal faculty than about prospective (or current) students... with the lone exceptions of Prof Henderson at IU Bloomington and maybe Prof Morrissey out at Gonzaga, virtually nobody in academia is looking at how to fix the information gap between law schools and prospective law students.

Difference in faculty quality is tough to use as a proxy for job prospects because quality doesn't drop off nearly as quickly as you move down the USNews ladder. Differences in faculty quality are marginal and reputations are also largely static. This is why many critics of USNews question why they place such a large emphasis on reputation.

My thoughts are that having a top professor won't translate into job opportunities for you, the student, unless 1) the professor has actual experience in private practice/govt/ngos, which most don't, AND 2) they want to help you find jobs instead of just teach you about their scholarship or the law in general, which most don't, AND 3) you have direct access to them during your job search, which I imagine is not true at many of the larger programs that focus one primary market.

[observationalist]

First T6 to T17 comparison: T17 has more enjoyable library with more windows and less people crammed into corners, but T6 has free printing which I am availing myself of liberally as I spend my spring break preparing for two short course final exams next week.

[observationalist]

This has turned into high LSAT/GPA = smart students. Is that really true? If someone happened to fudge his lsat and he slacked off in UG, he's dinged for HYS, but he could very well be a better classmate than a 170+/3.95 regarding class discussion.

Yes, he/she certainly could be a better classmate. But he most likely is not. If you had to select a class of, say, 400 students, and wanted to get the most intelligent/stimulating people who would contribute most to class discussion, and couldn't hold mock classes for every applicant, how would you choose? My guess is previous academic record and standardized test scores.

I'd also add that while GPA/LSAT are big components that's not all. Top schools often have people with very strong softs.

That's why NW has interviews.

I wouldn't be surprised if the new hiring trend at v100 has a larger percentage of students from lower ranked schools for the simple reason that if I'm only going to hire x% of what I used to hire might as well get the best we can regardless of prestige.

On a side note, some TTT's are better prepared for lawyer work from the start then T1

LOL, NU took me, and I'm a social retard.

Law firms are now going to prestige whore more than ever. Firms can now get HYS CCN students that they couldn't before. And why would they purposely go lower when the pay is the same anyway?

2011 OCI rumors showed that T14 schools held up so-so, but schools like Illinois and Notre Dame got rocked.

This is not correct, but you're right to highlight this as being important. Large schools and/or schools that only target a single primary market seemed to get slammed worse at OCI this year than smaller programs and/or those that are geographically diverse. This is why I think Vandy and Duke's OCIs went better than Cornell's, UTs, UCLAs, and GULC's this year. Unfortunately it won't play out until the Class of 2011 information is released, which will be June 2010 in the case of Vandy and Duke and let's say March 2012 in the case of Cornell/UT/UCLA/GULC. This will only change if the schools agree to release more current employment information than what's currently required by the ABA and USNews. Prospectives deciding between these schools should be leveraging their acceptance letters to ask for information on the Class of 2011 OCI now, rather than wait until they actually decide on a school to figure out whether or not it was the best choice for them.

[Edit: it may be correct to say Illinois and ND got rocked. But it's not correct to say that T14 schools held up ok when we know some of them didn't. Before anyone can make this claim, the T14 schools in question would need to actually release more information than what they've provided in the past.]

[Grizz]

If someone happened to fudge his lsat and he slacked off in UG, he's dinged for HYS, but he could very well be a better classmate than a 170+/3.95 regarding class discussion.

Well his slacking in undergrad and blowing the LSAT would indicate that he has less potential for the study of law, considering that law school is based on big tests and hard study.

Not less potential, just less likelihood she'll reach her potential. The thing about effort is that it can be switched on.

I guess my point was "why take the chance," but yes I agree with you.

[PDaddy]

You're arguing against a position that no one is taking. We go to top law schools for the jobs.

I disagree. It is not the case that OP is arguing against a position that "no one is taking". To the contrary, most of us take the position that higher ranked schools justifiably have better job prospects because firms/employers assume not only that the "teaching quality" is better at higher ranked schools (a point TLSers often cite when choosing schools), but that the competition must be stiffer because of the resulting curricula and "quality" of students - as determined by LSAT/GPA. Having gone through a theoretically more rigorous program, many argue that students and graduates from top and elite law schools are better prepared for the profession.

The ranking system is set up to self-perpetuate its own myths, namely 1) that certain schools are innately better than others and 2) that the students who attend those schools are better by virtue of their admission to, and graduation from, those schools. These are the reasons people choose those schools. The job prospects are part of the dynamic that feeds into the perceptions of school quality.

It just so happens that, once we peel back the layers of artifice, we are really mistaking cause for effect. Most of the top schools never had to work their way to the top, and had the job prospects bestowed upon them by virtue of a long-held status as great educational institutions, but not comparatively so. Hence, the ages of the schools were the chickens that begot the eggs that begot the chicks, or vice-vice-versa.

[itsmytime10]

You're arguing against a position that no one is taking. We go to top law schools for the jobs.

I disagree. It is not the case that OP is arguing against a position that "no one is taking". To the contrary, most of us take the position that higher ranked schools justifiably have better job prospects because firms/employers assume not only that the "teaching quality" is better at higher ranked schools (a point TLSers often cite when choosing schools), but that the competition must be stiffer because of the resulting curricula and "quality" of students - as determined by LSAT/GPA. Having gone through a theoretically more rigorous program, many argue that students and graduates from top and elite law schools are better prepared for the profession.

The ranking system is set up to self-perpetuate its own myths, namely 1) that certain schools are innately better than others and 2) that the students who attend those schools are better by virtue of their admission to, and graduation from, those schools. These are the reasons people choose those schools. The job prospects are part of the dynamic that feeds into the perceptions of school quality.

It just so happens that, once we peel back the layers of artifice, we are really mistaking cause for effect. Most of the top schools never had to work their way to the top, and had the job prospects bestowed upon them by virtue of a long-held status as great educational institutions, but not comparatively so. Hence, the ages of the schools were the chickens that begot the eggs that begot the chicks, or vice-vice-versa.

That is sooo true.

[observationalist]

You're arguing against a position that no one is taking. We go to top law schools for the jobs.

I disagree. It is not the case that OP is arguing against a position that "no one is taking". To the contrary, most of us take the position that higher ranked schools justifiably have better job prospects because firms/employers assume not only that the "teaching quality" is better at higher ranked schools (a point TLSers often cite when choosing schools), but that the competition must be stiffer because of the resulting curricula and "quality" of students - as determined by LSAT/GPA. Having gone through a theoretically more rigorous program, many argue that students and graduates from top and elite law schools are better prepared for the profession.

The ranking system is set up to self-perpetuate its own myths, namely 1) that certain schools are innately better than others and 2) that the students who attend those schools are better by virtue of their admission to, and graduation from, those schools. These are the reasons people choose those schools. The job prospects are part of the dynamic that feeds into the perceptions of school quality.

It just so happens that, once we peel back the layers of artifice, we are really mistaking cause for effect. Most of the top schools never had to work their way to the top, and had the job prospects bestowed upon them by virtue of a long-held status as great educational institutions, but not comparatively so. Hence, the ages of the schools were the chickens that begot the eggs that begot the chicks, or vice-vice-versa.

That is sooo true.

Props to huge bolded statements. And while I think it's going too far to say that the feedback effect is disappearing, I do think that some of the most reputable schools are doing a poor job adapting to the new job market ITE and that schools that have been traditionally lower-ranked are seeing openings by being quicker to adapt their education models. Schools that are not contemplating shrinking their class sizes as the job market shrinks are no longer offering as valuable a degree as they did a few years ago, something that has to be taken into consideration

[Unemployed]

There's a difference between "participating" and actually contributing. Whenever someone says something stupid, I automatically assume he/she had a TTT LSAT score. Like a 170.

In all seriousness, very few people are qualified to opine on this issue. Ask a transfer student. If I had to guess, probably not. But they do offer better employment opportunities. Is that justified? Who knows. Who cares. It's one of the rules of the game.