T10, T14, T15, or T20? Forum

[Mal Reynolds]

I just wanna know. I've seen people say that T14 schools are the end-all-be-all ideal.

The only people who ever say this are dumb and using it as a straw man to justify their shit admissions prospects.

[ScottRiqui]

No one guns for small law

What makes you so sure that everyone aspires to biglaw? The hours and lifestyle aren't for everyone, and you're deluding yourself if you think that anyone who wants to be an attorney automatically wants to be a biglaw associate.

So are there people at Berkeley who turn down biglaw offers in order to work a 60k small law job? Or people with good grades who don't do OCI because they really just want that 60k small law job?

Honestly curious.

What do you mean by "biglaw"? Is it strictly 501+ lawyer firms that pay market? And are those the only jobs that you can get through OCI? I know that midlaw is something of a "unicorn", but honestly, if I could get ~ $115k at an IP boutique firm with a good lifestyle right out of school, I'd at least consider passing up a market-paying gig for it.

[BigZuck]

No one guns for small law

What makes you so sure that everyone aspires to biglaw? The hours and lifestyle aren't for everyone, and you're deluding yourself if you think that anyone who wants to be an attorney automatically wants to be a biglaw associate.

So are there people at Berkeley who turn down biglaw offers in order to work a 60k small law job? Or people with good grades who don't do OCI because they really just want that 60k small law job?

Honestly curious.

What do you mean by "biglaw"? Is it strictly 501+ lawyer firms that pay market? And are those the only jobs that you can get through OCI? I know that midlaw is something of a "unicorn", but honestly, if I could get ~ $115k at an IP boutique firm with a good lifestyle right out of school, I'd at least consider passing up a market-paying gig for it.

What do you mean by good lifestyle? I don't think there's a whole lot of 9-5 100K+ jobs out there, especially for freshly minted lawyers.

Do you have some specific firms in mind that fit this description?

[rad lulz]

m

[ScottRiqui]

What do you mean by good lifestyle? I don't think there's a whole lot of 9-5 100K+ jobs out there, especially for freshly minted lawyers.

Do you have some specific firms in mind that fit this description?

No specific firms in mind, and I acknowledged that "mid law" is supposedly hard to come by. I'm just saying that if there were something in the IP field that fell somewhere between "9-5" and "days, nights and weekends", I'd consider passing up market for it. But in the end, I suppose I'll be "gunning for biglaw" one way or the other, either to make sure I'm competitive for a midlaw job should the opportunity arise, or at least putting myself in the position to hopefully get biglaw with the intention of lateraling to a more lifestyle-friendly job after a few years.

[cotiger]

No one guns for small law

What makes you so sure that everyone aspires to biglaw? The hours and lifestyle aren't for everyone, and you're deluding yourself if you think that anyone who wants to be an attorney automatically wants to be a biglaw associate.

So are there people at Berkeley who turn down biglaw offers in order to work a 60k small law job? Or people with good grades who don't do OCI because they really just want that 60k small law job?

Honestly curious.

No idea, I don't ask. I wasn't referring to students at the T14, though, because that's where you'll be most likely to find the individuals who are gunning for biglaw. I'm referring to all of the other law schools, which many students attend on significant scholarships because having little (or no) debt and a good work/life balance is certainly nothing to look down upon.

There's no looking down upon here. I'm just trying to determine if there are a non-negligible number of students who would turn down a biglaw job for a small law job (which I highly doubt). It's important because if there are such students then that would affect how we judge the ability of the school to place into difficult to get jobs.

For example if a school had 10% want Gov/PI and 30% got Biglaw/A3, then usually we would assume that 30/90=33% that wanted Biglaw got it. But if another 10% would actually turn down biglaw even if they could get it, then the percentage of those who get biglaw out of those who want it would be 30/80=38%.

I'm just skeptical that a significant number even at a T2 school would take the 60k job over the 160k if offered both. Even for those who just want a chill, simple life (if that is what small law is...), wouldn't most suck it up for 2 years to put an extra 200k in the bank, and then retire to small law for the rest of their days?

[cotiger]

What do you mean by "biglaw"? Is it strictly 501+ lawyer firms that pay market? And are those the only jobs that you can get through OCI? I know that midlaw is something of a "unicorn", but honestly, if I could get ~ $115k at an IP boutique firm with a good lifestyle right out of school, I'd at least consider passing up a market-paying gig for it.

Small law means the ~50-60k jobs that are overwhelmingly what recent law school grads who are employed in 2-50 person firms will be working at.

[McGruff]

TWIST: OP, a psychiatrist specializing in the treatment of people with a mental illness that makes them want to argue the exact same points over and over again despite nothing changing and no one actually learning anything(a "Sisyphus-Eristic Complex"?), is providing TLSers with cathartic relief by trolling, in the hopes that this strange, autism-riddled community might provide him with some insight he could use in researching treatments (and perhaps eventually a cure) for this awful, awful disease.

[yossarian]

No idea, I don't ask. I wasn't referring to students at the T14, though, because that's where you'll be most likely to find the individuals who are gunning for biglaw. I'm referring to all of the other law schools, which many students attend on significant scholarships because having little (or no) debt and a good work/life balance is certainly nothing to look down upon.

There's no looking down upon here. I'm just trying to determine if there are a non-negligible number of students who would turn down a biglaw job for a small law job (which I highly doubt). It's important because if there are such students then that would affect how we judge the ability of the school to place into difficult to get jobs.

For example if a school had 10% want Gov/PI and 30% got Biglaw/A3, then usually we would assume that 30/90=33% that wanted Biglaw got it. But if another 10% would actually turn down biglaw even if they could get it, then the percentage of those who get biglaw out of those who want it would be 30/80=38%.

I'm just skeptical that a significant number even at a T2 school would take the 60k job over the 160k if offered both. Even for those who just want a chill, simple life (if that is what small law is...), wouldn't most suck it up for 2 years to put an extra 200k in the bank, and then retire to small law for the rest of their days?

Who would honestly turn it down? I'm not sure. But I'm not sure that's the measure. Because then, your numbers insinuate 2/3 are screwed and dissatisfied. Some number (unsure of how to calculate) of that two thirds got what they expected going in and are satisfied.

[guano]

What do you mean by good lifestyle? I don't think there's a whole lot of 9-5 100K+ jobs out there, especially for freshly minted lawyers.

Do you have some specific firms in mind that fit this description?

No specific firms in mind, and I acknowledged that "mid law" is supposedly hard to come by. I'm just saying that if there were something in the IP field that fell somewhere between "9-5" and "days, nights and weekends", I'd consider passing up market for it. But in the end, I suppose I'll be "gunning for biglaw" one way or the other, either to make sure I'm competitive for a midlaw job should the opportunity arise, or at least putting myself in the position to hopefully get biglaw with the intention of lateraling to a more lifestyle-friendly job after a few years.

There are IP boutiques that somewhat fit that description

[Zeeguy91]

Please tell me what skills law school gives you.

Also, where are these employers that don't think Cornell is better than Vanderbilt? Be specific.

Analytical skills, mediation skills, research, writing, hands-on experience. Plenty of employers I've talked to have stressed that those are skills that they look for and that's why many of them hire lawyers or people who have gotten law degrees.

Especially when talking about hands-on experience you have to look at the strength of a schools clinical program, and when you actually look at the rankings of schools based on that criteria, a bunch of non-T14 schools place in the top 10: Maryland, American, UDC, Wash U, etc.

Really surprised nobody has pointed out this gem. Zeeguy, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Go look at the LST employment data at Cornell and at Vandy/UCLA/UT. Then come back here and try to argue that there's not "much of a difference."

e: preempted by BZ as usual

A) Is it necessary for you to be condescending and rude?

B) Okay, wrong about Cornell. However, the point still holds true for Georgetown. So, if a bunch of schools at the lower end of the top 20 have job placement near or even better than Georgetown, then you are faced with three options: cut Georgetown from the T14 (which I know some of you want to do) and make it just the T13, swap out Georgetown for whatever school is doing better at job placement rate than GULC (UT Austin), or be more inclusive and set the criteria for an ideal job placement rate at, say, maybe 70% or above (which would only bring in three additional schools: UT Austin, UCLA, and Vandy). Or does that "taint" it too much?

[Gooner91]

Please tell me what skills law school gives you.

Also, where are these employers that don't think Cornell is better than Vanderbilt? Be specific.

Analytical skills, mediation skills, research, writing, hands-on experience. Plenty of employers I've talked to have stressed that those are skills that they look for and that's why many of them hire lawyers or people who have gotten law degrees.

Especially when talking about hands-on experience you have to look at the strength of a schools clinical program, and when you actually look at the rankings of schools based on that criteria, a bunch of non-T14 schools place in the top 10: Maryland, American, UDC, Wash U, etc.

Really surprised nobody has pointed out this gem. Zeeguy, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Go look at the LST employment data at Cornell and at Vandy/UCLA/UT. Then come back here and try to argue that there's not "much of a difference."

e: preempted by BZ as usual

A) Is it necessary for you to be condescending and rude?

B) Okay, wrong about Cornell. However, the point still holds true for Georgetown. So, if a bunch of schools at the lower end of the top 20 have job placement near or even better than Georgetown, then you are either faced with three options: cut Georgetown from the T14 (which I know some of you want to do) and make it just the T13, swap out Georgetown for whatever school is doing better at job placement rate than GULC (UT Austin), or be more inclusive and set the criteria for an ideal job placement rate at, say, maybe 70% or above (which would only bring in three additional schools: UT Austin, UCLA, and Vandy). Or does that "taint" it too much?

That will not work because a T-17 just does not sound right.

Also why do we need to look at clinical program strength? All that practical knowledge is useless if you cannot find a job to use it in.

[cotiger]

Who would honestly turn it down? I'm not sure. But I'm not sure that's the measure. Because then, your numbers insinuate 2/3 are screwed and dissatisfied. Some number (unsure of how to calculate) of that two thirds got what they expected going in and are satisfied.

I don't mean for that to imply 2/3 are screwed and dissatisfied. It's more a measure for: a) what's the likelihood that someone will be able to pay back large amounts of debt, and b) how good is the school at getting students into difficult to get jobs. If you have limited debt and no burning desire to get one of those jobs (even if you'd take it if offered), the metric is indeed not particularly useful.

But just note that those supporting ND, W&L, and Maryland use the fact that some people do get those tough-to-get jobs as evidence for how those schools are actually pretty good. If that's what they want to measure a good job as, then those schools range from very bad (Maryland) to not very good (ND).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Especially when talking about hands-on experience you have to look at the strength of a schools clinical program, and when you actually look at the rankings of schools based on that criteria, a bunch of non-T14 schools place in the top 10: Maryland, American, UDC, Wash U, etc.

Nonononononono. Specialized rankings are useless; they're rankings of professors' scholarship by professors and have nothing to do with student experience or value added to one's education. ALL law schools have clinics where you can get hands-on experience, and they also allow you to intern/extern for actual employers where you can get other hands-on experience. No one should consider rankings of clinical programs when picking a school.

[Zeeguy91]

Please tell me what skills law school gives you.

Also, where are these employers that don't think Cornell is better than Vanderbilt? Be specific.

Analytical skills, mediation skills, research, writing, hands-on experience. Plenty of employers I've talked to have stressed that those are skills that they look for and that's why many of them hire lawyers or people who have gotten law degrees.

Especially when talking about hands-on experience you have to look at the strength of a schools clinical program, and when you actually look at the rankings of schools based on that criteria, a bunch of non-T14 schools place in the top 10: Maryland, American, UDC, Wash U, etc.

Really surprised nobody has pointed out this gem. Zeeguy, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Go look at the LST employment data at Cornell and at Vandy/UCLA/UT. Then come back here and try to argue that there's not "much of a difference."

e: preempted by BZ as usual

A) Is it necessary for you to be condescending and rude?

B) Okay, wrong about Cornell. However, the point still holds true for Georgetown. So, if a bunch of schools at the lower end of the top 20 have job placement near or even better than Georgetown, then you are either faced with three options: cut Georgetown from the T14 (which I know some of you want to do) and make it just the T13, swap out Georgetown for whatever school is doing better at job placement rate than GULC (UT Austin), or be more inclusive and set the criteria for an ideal job placement rate at, say, maybe 70% or above (which would only bring in three additional schools: UT Austin, UCLA, and Vandy). Or does that "taint" it too much?

That will not work because a T-17 just does not sound right.

Also why do we need to look at clinical program strength? All that practical knowledge is useless if you cannot find a job to use it in.

Neither does T14, to be honest. When I first heard of the T14, I thought "why not just make it top 15?" Anyway, if they fit the criteria, then why not? Vandy, Texas, and UCLA all have job placement scores at around the same level that Georgetown does.

Also, clinical strength is important because employers like it when you already have some work experience under your belt. Plus, internships allow you to make some connection with possible future employers. That was actually what my friend found to be a big plus while she was at Maryland, because she actually went to go work for the firm that she interned for while she was still in law school.

[TheSpanishMain]

That was actually what my friend found to be a big plus while she was at Maryland, because she actually went to go work for the firm that she interned for while she was still in law school.

I'm glad it worked out for your friend, but when you mention places like American and UDC...I just sort of shudder. Look at their employment scores. American is beyond awful at any price, and what they charge is criminal. UDC is one of the worst in the United States. It's like Cooley level awful.

[ScottRiqui]

Neither does T14, to be honest. When I first heard of the T14, I thought "why not just make it top 15?" Anyway, if they fit the criteria, then why not? Vandy, Texas, and UCLA all have job placement scores at around the same level that Georgetown does.

I think when you look at "highly desirable" outcomes (i.e. a job that will allow you to pay off significant debt in a reasonable amount of time, or at least a clear path to such a job), using the number of students getting biglaw jobs or A3 clerkships as the metric, the gap between the T14 and the schools immediately below them becomes more visible.

There's more information, including some graphs, here but the short version is that you have a big jump downward from Michigan to Vanderbilt, with Georgetown right in the middle of the two.

[Serett]

Please tell me what skills law school gives you.

Also, where are these employers that don't think Cornell is better than Vanderbilt? Be specific.

Analytical skills, mediation skills, research, writing, hands-on experience. Plenty of employers I've talked to have stressed that those are skills that they look for and that's why many of them hire lawyers or people who have gotten law degrees.

Especially when talking about hands-on experience you have to look at the strength of a schools clinical program, and when you actually look at the rankings of schools based on that criteria, a bunch of non-T14 schools place in the top 10: Maryland, American, UDC, Wash U, etc.

Really surprised nobody has pointed out this gem. Zeeguy, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Go look at the LST employment data at Cornell and at Vandy/UCLA/UT. Then come back here and try to argue that there's not "much of a difference."

e: preempted by BZ as usual

A) Is it necessary for you to be condescending and rude?

B) Okay, wrong about Cornell. However, the point still holds true for Georgetown. So, if a bunch of schools at the lower end of the top 20 have job placement near or even better than Georgetown, then you are either faced with three options: cut Georgetown from the T14 (which I know some of you want to do) and make it just the T13, swap out Georgetown for whatever school is doing better at job placement rate than GULC (UT Austin), or be more inclusive and set the criteria for an ideal job placement rate at, say, maybe 70% or above (which would only bring in three additional schools: UT Austin, UCLA, and Vandy). Or does that "taint" it too much?

That will not work because a T-17 just does not sound right.

Also why do we need to look at clinical program strength? All that practical knowledge is useless if you cannot find a job to use it in.

Neither does T14, to be honest. When I first heard of the T14, I thought "why not just make it top 15?" Anyway, if they fit the criteria, then why not? Vandy, Texas, and UCLA all have job placement scores at around the same level that Georgetown does.

Also, clinical strength is important employers like it when you already have some work experience under your belt. Plus, internships allow you to make some connection with possible future employers. That was actually what my friend found to be a big plus while she was at Maryland, because she actually went to go work for the firm that she interned for while she was still in law school.

You can always push any ranking out at the margins, down a possibly endless line by comparing the last school included to the first school out. Those who focus so much on rankings, and where the lines are drawn, just do not seem to understand the purpose of rankings or how to make a useful heuristic, and it makes the entire enterprise useless.

Outcome-wise, the other three schools one may potentially draw into the mix (UT, UCLA, and Vanderbilt) are still significantly outclassed by Georgetown. Using Class of 2012 data from LST, Georgetown gives 65% of its sizable class the outcome of either a large firm or public interest (the ultimate goal for many who attend Georgetown due to its location). The combined percentages for the other three? Vanderbilt at 30%, UT a bit shy of 40%, and UCLA at 45%. I should have included federal clerkships, but they very honestly don't change much except for putting UT about in line with UCLA and helping Vandy catch up a bit. Georgetown also wins the undermployed battle by a noticeable margin. I really don't care for the coin flip metaphor (because it has the connotation that the whole endeavor is outside of an individual's control), but I'm going to use it here: that's the difference between less than a coin flip's chance to very significantly over it for those most desirable of outcomes. Frankly, if Georgetown would just shrink its class down to Texas's size, it would not even be questionable (and I'm not sure it's even questionable right now ). This is why there is not a T17, or a T13, or a T20. The gulf between Georgetown and the Next Three is significantly more defensible than that between the Next Three and the Next Next Three, and the waters just keep muddying between rank further down the line.

Does that mean it is never a better idea for someone to attend one of those next three in line over Georgetown? Not in the least bit. But is the split perfectly justifiable? Certainly. Is it the most justifiable split? It honestly looks like it to me. I have no vested interest in this (no application sent to Georgetown, and UCLA is in the running for my choice if they end up offering good enough of an aid offer), but TLS, and more importantly, the employment data, has more than managed to convince me that T14 is the most useful split of 'top' schools that one can in good faith make.

[rad lulz]

m

[cotiger]

You can always push any ranking out at the margins, down a possibly endless line by comparing the last school included to the first school out. Those who focus so much on rankings, and where the lines are drawn, just do not seem to understand the purpose of rankings or how to make a useful heuristic, and it makes the entire enterprise useless.

Outcome-wise, the other three schools one may potentially draw into the mix (UT, UCLA, and Vanderbilt) are still significantly outclassed by Georgetown. Using Class of 2012 data from LST, Georgetown gives 65% of its sizable class the outcome of either a large firm or public interest (the ultimate goal for many who attend Georgetown due to its location). The combined percentages for the other three? Vanderbilt at 30%, UT a bit shy of 40%, and UCLA at 45%. I should have included federal clerkships, but they very honestly don't change much except for putting UT about in line with UCLA and helping Vandy catch up a bit. Georgetown also wins the undermployed battle by a noticeable margin.

While I don't disagree with you in general (especially about the fact that these are just heuristics), your data is not quite correct. BigLaw+A3+PI+Gov for those four for C/O 2012 is GULC 69%>UCLA 50%>Vandy 50%>Texas 48%. Not sure how Vandy was checking in around 30%.

[guano]

a bunch of non-T14 schools place in the top 10: Maryland, American, UDC, Wash U, etc.

[cotiger]

I don't like this "let's subtract the people who got govt/PI from the final figures and just assume that all of those were people who wanted govt/PI"

Sure, it's not perfect (which is why I corrected a bit for the possibility that school-funded positions went to the generally unemployed rather than those who actually wanted PI), but I think it's still an improvement on just looking at the gross data for likelihood of BigLaw if you want it.

Is there an area in particular that you don't like or think it could be improved upon?

ETA: I guess I'm also inclined to like it because it conforms to my expectations for pure biglaw hiring--showing Columbia on the same level as YHS, a small but noticeable difference between T6+Penn and the rest of the T14, and a large gap between the bottom of the T14(13) and the best of the rest with GULC in the middle.

[rad lulz]

m

[californiauser]

a bunch of non-T14 schools place in the top 10: Maryland, American, UDC, Wash U, etc.

*rankings don't matter, see these schools have comparable employment rates!*

*see these other rankings, they prove that the t-14 means nothing1!*

[Serett]

You can always push any ranking out at the margins, down a possibly endless line by comparing the last school included to the first school out. Those who focus so much on rankings, and where the lines are drawn, just do not seem to understand the purpose of rankings or how to make a useful heuristic, and it makes the entire enterprise useless.

Outcome-wise, the other three schools one may potentially draw into the mix (UT, UCLA, and Vanderbilt) are still significantly outclassed by Georgetown. Using Class of 2012 data from LST, Georgetown gives 65% of its sizable class the outcome of either a large firm or public interest (the ultimate goal for many who attend Georgetown due to its location). The combined percentages for the other three? Vanderbilt at 30%, UT a bit shy of 40%, and UCLA at 45%. I should have included federal clerkships, but they very honestly don't change much except for putting UT about in line with UCLA and helping Vandy catch up a bit. Georgetown also wins the undermployed battle by a noticeable margin.

While I don't disagree with you in general (especially about the fact that these are just heuristics), your data is not quite correct. BigLaw+A3+PI+Gov for those four for C/O 2012 is GULC 69%>UCLA 50%>Vandy 50%>Texas 48%. Not sure how Vandy was checking in around 30%.

Thanks for the correction, somewhere in transcription I stole a random 10% from Vandy, hahah. Sorry, Vandy folks.