T10, T14, T15, or T20? Forum

[Nelson]

This is a fucking magnificent troll job.

I just hope OP and raininthedesert are the same regular megaposter to make this truly skillful.

[guano]

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?

Looking at biglaw + fed clerkship is a good proxy as:
A) most law students want those jobs
B) those jobs are hard to get
C) no need to split hairs (other categories will be a mix of crisp jobs and good jobs, between those who wanted it and those who settled, etc)
That doesn't mean that if X% got bigkaw/clerkship only X% got jobs they wanted (see e.g. Yale), but it's a pretty good proxy.

You could then also try to amend for variables. For example, Georgetown might underperform because a lot of grads want to work in policy, Yale academia placement is legit, or include state clerkships for Jersey schools, because the state has a robust clerkship program and local biglaw predominantly hired state clerks rather than fresh grads. But, apart from having to guess what factor to apply, it's unlikely that you'll be able to make this adjustment for more than a handful of schools, because of lack of knowledge

[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?

I definitely get the theory

I guess I'm just more pessimistic in my readings of numbers

I only knew a couple people in my class who didn't do OCI

(Although I do know someone who have up a big law 2L SA to do PI)

I guess I'm just cynical and assume nearly everyone wants most $$$

Or maybe Vandy is coloring my perceptions bc there was minimal PI/govt support and the LRAP sucks

I mean, my perceptions are probably colored too because doing this adjustment tends to confirm my pre-existing ideas about how the schools stack up 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(13) (who are all essentially the same), and a large gap between the bottom of the T14(13) and the best of the rest with GULC in the middle.

[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?

Looking at biglaw + fed clerkship is a good proxy as:
A) most law students want those jobs
B) those jobs are hard to get
C) no need to split hairs (other categories will be a mix of crisp jobs and good jobs, between those who wanted it and those who settled, etc)
That doesn't mean that if X% got bigkaw/clerkship only X% got jobs they wanted (see e.g. Yale), but it's a pretty good proxy.

You could then also try to amend for variables. For example, Georgetown might underperform because a lot of grads want to work in policy, Yale academia placement is legit, or include state clerkships for Jersey schools, because the state has a robust clerkship program and local biglaw predominantly hired state clerks rather than fresh grads. But, apart from having to guess what factor to apply, it's unlikely that you'll be able to make this adjustment for more than a handful of schools, because of lack of knowledge

Right, but the adjustment you need to do is significantly less radical when you start by factoring out PI. As discussed here (and elsewhere) http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=220431, PI hiring is on a very different track than biglaw and can't really be used as a fallback. Therefore, most people in PI have to want to be there.

Otherwise, you start out with a baseline of NYU at 62 vs Penn at 71, which is silliness. How much to adjust? My way, the baseline between those two schools is NYU 77 vs Penn 76, which makes a lot more sense as to comparing the relative ease of getting biglaw between the two.

ETA: As I said to radlulz, looking at the results just feels more right (though of course confirmation bias..). For instance, you can clearly make out a difference between T6+Penn and T14, whereas with the gross data it's just one random clusterfuck.

[Zeeguy91]

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!*

I never said rankings don't matter. Did I advocate that someone should go to UDC or American over Georgetown or Yale if given the chance? No. I simply said that maybe the T14 should be opened up a bit to include other schools that do have similar standing in regards to reputation and job placement, such as UCLA, Vanderbilt, and U Texas (and to a lesser extent USC and Wash U), instead forming a T17 or T20.

Also, those rankings I did post examined the strength of clinical programs at each of the law schools, and that it goes against the traditional T14 thinking in that it shows how some law schools usually thought to be second-tier have stronger clinical programs than some T14 schools.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Also, those rankings I did post examined the strength of clinical programs at each of the law schools, and that it goes against the traditional T14 thinking in that it shows how some law schools usually thought to be second-tier have stronger clinical programs than some T14 schools.

Right. Those schools still don't place more students in jobs than the T14 despite any alleged strengths in clinical programs, though. They are certainly not a reason to pick a particular school.

[guano]

I simply said that maybe the T14 should be opened up a bit to include other schools that do have similar standing in regards to reputation and job placement

except, they don't

[Zeeguy91]

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.

By that logic, we should say that since every law school has classes, and professors, and libraries, and desks, and computers, etc. that there is really no point in ranking them at all. The quality of legal education at one school would probably be the same as it would at any other.

Sure, all law schools have clinical training programs. However, not all of them are the same. Some have more options, more connections, and a greater ability to provide deeper experience than others. It also depends on the location of the law school. Schools like Georgetown, Maryland, and American are probably more able to provide clinics and internships dealing in politics and government due to the fact that two of them are based in DC and the other is in Baltimore, which is basically like DC's fraternal twin brother who lives down the street.

[guano]

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.

By that logic, we should say that since every law school has classes, and professors, and libraries, and desks, and computers, etc. that there is really no point in ranking them at all. The quality of legal education at one school would probably be the same as it would at any other.

Sure, all law schools have clinical training programs. However, not all of them are the same. Some have more options, more connections, and a greater ability to provide deeper experience than others. It also depends on the location of the law school. Schools like Georgetown, Maryland, and American are probably more able to provide clinics and internships dealing in politics and government due to the fact that two of them are based in DC and the other is in Baltimore, which is basically like DC's fraternal twin brother who lives down the street.

um, what?
It doesn't matter if American is better at teaching students; what matters is that it sucks at getting those students jobs

[Zeeguy91]

I simply said that maybe the T14 should be opened up a bit to include other schools that do have similar standing in regards to reputation and job placement

except, they don't

Like I said, UCLA, Vandy, and Texas all have around the same placement as Georgetown (percentile in the early-to-mid 70s), and all three placed a higher percentage of their grads in federal clerkship jobs than GULC (UCLA: 4.8%, Texas: 8.3%, Vandy: 10.2%, and GULC: 3.7%). Plus, UCLA also has around the same percentage of their grads entering into big firm jobs (UCLA: 34.2%, GULC: 39.1%).

[guano]

I simply said that maybe the T14 should be opened up a bit to include other schools that do have similar standing in regards to reputation and job placement

except, they don't

Like I said, UCLA, Vandy, and Texas all have around the same placement as Georgetown (percentile in the early-to-mid 70s), and all three placed a higher percentage of their grads in federal clerkship jobs than GULC (UCLA: 4.8%, Texas: 8.3%, Vandy: 10.2%, and GULC: 3.7%). Plus, UCLA also has around the same percentage of their grads entering into big firm jobs (UCLA: 34.2%, GULC: 39.1%).

what do you mean with "same placement"?

Also, keep in mind that GULC is the bitch of the T14

[Mal Reynolds]

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.

By that logic, we should say that since every law school has classes, and professors, and libraries, and desks, and computers, etc. that there is really no point in ranking them at all. The quality of legal education at one school would probably be the same as it would at any other.

Sure, all law schools have clinical training programs. However, not all of them are the same. Some have more options, more connections, and a greater ability to provide deeper experience than others. It also depends on the location of the law school. Schools like Georgetown, Maryland, and American are probably more able to provide clinics and internships dealing in politics and government due to the fact that two of them are based in DC and the other is in Baltimore, which is basically like DC's fraternal twin brother who lives down the street.

The only criterion schools should be ranked on is ability to get their students jobs. Everything else is worthless.

[Zeeguy91]

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.

By that logic, we should say that since every law school has classes, and professors, and libraries, and desks, and computers, etc. that there is really no point in ranking them at all. The quality of legal education at one school would probably be the same as it would at any other.

Sure, all law schools have clinical training programs. However, not all of them are the same. Some have more options, more connections, and a greater ability to provide deeper experience than others. It also depends on the location of the law school. Schools like Georgetown, Maryland, and American are probably more able to provide clinics and internships dealing in politics and government due to the fact that two of them are based in DC and the other is in Baltimore, which is basically like DC's fraternal twin brother who lives down the street.

um, what?
It doesn't matter if American is better at teaching students; what matters is that it sucks at getting those students jobs

Did I say go to American over Georgetown or Yale? Obviously, if you get into a school that'll give you name recognition, go there.

Anyway, we've sort of strayed from my original point. I was never advocating that Maryland or American or UDC should replace the T14 or even that they be included in the same category.

However, I think that UCLA, Texas, and Vandy should be included in this "T" category, at least if you're gonna include GULC.

[guano]

However, I think that UCLA, Texas, and Vandy should be included in this "T" category, at least if you're gonna include GULC.

I think a lot more people are on board with not including GULC

[A. Nony Mouse]

By that logic, we should say that since every law school has classes, and professors, and libraries, and desks, and computers, etc. that there is really no point in ranking them at all. The quality of legal education at one school would probably be the same as it would at any other.

The quality of legal education *is* pretty much the same at all law schools. You can get perfectly good legal education pretty much anywhere. The profs all have the same kinds of qualifications, and the quality of their legal scholarship has very little to do with the student experience. The elements in the rankings that purport to go to "education" are 1) "peer" assessments and lawyer/judge assessments, which are absolutely and utterly subjective; plus, a whole 9% of judges/lawyers surveyed responded; 2) bar passage rate, which likely correlates just as much with the GPA/LSAT of students at the school as anything students learn at the school, especially since everyone from Yale to Cal Western generally takes a bar prep course after law school anyway; and 3) maybe student-faculty ratio. Really, the quality of education you get is likely determined much more by the average intelligence of the students in your class than by anything the schools do. You can get much more famous professors the higher up the food chain you go, but that doesn't make them great educators.

What differs most is employment opportunities, where, in what kinds of jobs.

[Zeeguy91]

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.

By that logic, we should say that since every law school has classes, and professors, and libraries, and desks, and computers, etc. that there is really no point in ranking them at all. The quality of legal education at one school would probably be the same as it would at any other.

Sure, all law schools have clinical training programs. However, not all of them are the same. Some have more options, more connections, and a greater ability to provide deeper experience than others. It also depends on the location of the law school. Schools like Georgetown, Maryland, and American are probably more able to provide clinics and internships dealing in politics and government due to the fact that two of them are based in DC and the other is in Baltimore, which is basically like DC's fraternal twin brother who lives down the street.

The only criterion schools should be ranked on is ability to get their students jobs. Everything else is worthless.

Well, what I've been advocating from the start is that Texas, Vandy, and UCLA, which are really close to Georgetown in regards to that category should be considered as in the top tier, and that the T14 should be expanded to the T17

[Zeeguy91]

However, I think that UCLA, Texas, and Vandy should be included in this "T" category, at least if you're gonna include GULC.

I think a lot more people are on board with not including GULC

Fine. But acting as if the schools below the "T13" have some sort of "shitty" reputation or that their job placement sucks is just inaccurate. Guaranteeing 70+% of your graduates a decent job placement is.....not bad at all. Plus, UCLA, Vandy, and Texas have really good reputations that extend beyond their local environments. Any admissions officer will probably tell you that national placement does not end at the T14.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think you might have a broader definition of national placement than many people here do. There's plenty of people here who would argue that the only really national schools are HYS. UCLA, Vandy, and Texas are great schools (better than where I went), and place well in lots of places, but if you want to be in California, out of those three you really want to be at UCLA, and if you want to be in the southeast, you do not want to go to UCLA.

(Ideally, at least. People can and do go anywhere from anywhere - someone in my class went from my lower T1 in the left hand side of the country to genuinely big biglaw in Boston. But you'd be crazy to say that someone who wanted biglaw in Boston should choose my law school, even if in this one case it turned out fine.)

[guano]

However, I think that UCLA, Texas, and Vandy should be included in this "T" category, at least if you're gonna include GULC.

I think a lot more people are on board with not including GULC

Fine. But acting as if the schools below the "T13" have some sort of "shitty" reputation or that their job placement sucks is just inaccurate. Guaranteeing 70+% of your graduates a decent job placement is.....not bad at all. Plus, UCLA, Vandy, and Texas have really good reputations that extend beyond their local environments. Any admissions officer will probably tell you that national placement does not end at the T14.

Actually, I doubt the "national placement" of half the T14

[BigZuck]

I have only interviewed with about 8 firms so someone like Rad can set me straight if this is wrong but no one has ever asked or talked about my "Analytical skills, mediation skills, research, writing, hands-on experience."

Also, as a UT bro all I can say is lulz at putting it on par with the T14. I like the school and it has been good to me so far but come on.

I'm with Nelson, gotta be a troll.

[Backpacker]

However, I think that UCLA, Texas, and Vandy should be included in this "T" category, at least if you're gonna include GULC.

I think a lot more people are on board with not including GULC

Fine. But acting as if the schools below the "T13" have some sort of "shitty" reputation or that their job placement sucks is just inaccurate. Guaranteeing 70+% of your graduates a decent job placement is.....not bad at all. Plus, UCLA, Vandy, and Texas have really good reputations that extend beyond their local environments. Any admissions officer will probably tell you that national placement does not end at the T14.

Actually, I doubt the "national placement" of half the T14

Which half?

[cannibal ox]

This is a little off the track of wherever this topic is going, but is there a huge difference between UCLA and USC that makes people include the former and not the latter in this discussion? Looking at LST they look fairly interchangeable, but maybe there's a distinction I'm missing.

[guano]

This is a little off the track of wherever this topic is going, but is there a huge difference between UCLA and USC that makes people include the former and not the latter in this discussion? Looking at LST they look fairly interchangeable, but maybe there's a distinction I'm missing.

The last few years they've been virtually tied

[guano]

I doubt the "national placement" of half the T14

Which half?

The half that isn't HYS

[Mal Reynolds]

I doubt the "national placement" of half the T14

Which half?

The half that isn't HYS

Stop shitting up this thread with your pseudo knowledge. You dropped out of law school. No one cares about your opinion.