Top Law Schools

pasteurizedmilk wrote:If you accept their (unsupportable) position that students at lower ranked schools will perform worse at higher ranked schools than you may have a point.

I don't accept that premise though.

pasteurizedmilk wrote:If you accept their (unsupportable) position that students at lower ranked schools will perform worse at higher ranked schools than you may have a point.

I don't accept that premise though.

pasteurizedmilk wrote:If you accept their (unsupportable) position that students at lower ranked schools will perform worse at higher ranked schools than you may have a point.

I don't accept that premise though.

We think prospective law students should be cautious about translating these findings into practice. Certainly our advice is not to go to the worst school one gets into; these relative tradeoffs are most convincing among schools within, say, twenty or thirty places of one another in the US News rankings. However, applicants should be considering where they are likely to perform their best, and should be wary of attending a school where their credentials (LSAT scores and UGPA) will be below average.

Kobe_Teeth wrote:What I think is more interesting is that this was posted on ATL days ago, is on Volkh today and TLS has barely acknowledged it.

theantiscalia wrote: Let's take the average law school student (with, let's say, a 160 and 3.4 GPA) as an example. Do you really think that they wouldn't perform above average at Cooley but below average at Columbia? Because while there might be instances of somebody exceeding (or falling far below) expectations, and while those numbers don't have full predictive value, on average, I think they're going to do as well as expected... i.e. top of the class at Cooley and bottom at Columbia.

That's the entire point of the LSAT... it is correlated with law school success... even if not highly correlated.

theantiscalia wrote:

Kobe_Teeth wrote:What I think is more interesting is that this was posted on ATL days ago, is on Volkh today and TLS has barely acknowledged it.

While I think the study is flawed (potential sample bias, out-dated data, third variable problem), it is fascinating.

I'd say it hasn't been acknowledged by TLS for two reasons...

(1.) It is a long read and kind of wonkish.
(2.) It questions a pervasive viewpoint on this site (i.e. go to the highest ranked school you get into).

ToTransferOrNot wrote:The article has been thoroughly torn apart on other parts of the board. Transfer students torpedo its premise. The employment data is largely irrelevant because the sample stops at 2002, and simply doesn't reflect current market reality (a reality that probably isn't going to change any time soon) re: the fact that firms simply aren't interviewing at lower-ranked schools.

theantiscalia wrote: I'd say it hasn't been acknowledged by TLS for two reasons...

(1.) It is a long read and kind of wonkish.

Dick Whitman wrote:

ToTransferOrNot wrote:The article has been thoroughly torn apart on other parts of the board. Transfer students torpedo its premise. The employment data is largely irrelevant because the sample stops at 2002, and simply doesn't reflect current market reality (a reality that probably isn't going to change any time soon) re: the fact that firms simply aren't interviewing at lower-ranked schools.

How do transfer students torpedo the premise? I'm missing your logic here.

OCI cutbacks have been across the board. Firms are hiring fewer students from higher-ranked schools as well -- and thus hiring higher-ranked students.

Dick Whitman wrote:

ToTransferOrNot wrote:The article has been thoroughly torn apart on other parts of the board. Transfer students torpedo its premise. The employment data is largely irrelevant because the sample stops at 2002, and simply doesn't reflect current market reality (a reality that probably isn't going to change any time soon) re: the fact that firms simply aren't interviewing at lower-ranked schools.

How do transfer students torpedo the premise? I'm missing your logic here.

ToTransferOrNot wrote: Transfer students routinely do just as well -if not better - at their new school. Kills the ideA that you will necessarily get lower grades by going to a higher ranked school.

And there is a difference between cutting back oci hiring and simply not going to a school's o I. Your rank doesn't matter if firms simply are not going to your school anymore--which is the case at many schools. (Take a look at how many Chicago firms went to UWisconsin's OCI last year and this year, for example.)

Desert Fox wrote:I don't buy that someone who does horrible at Harvard, would do well at Michigan.

You can test this. Look at people who had Harvard level numbers who went to Michigan (Darrow winners mostly), and see how they do.

theantiscalia wrote:

pasteurizedmilk wrote:If you accept their (unsupportable) position that students at lower ranked schools will perform worse at higher ranked schools than you may have a point.

I don't accept that premise though.

Let's take the average law school student (with, let's say, a 160 and 3.4 GPA) as an example. Do you really think that they wouldn't perform above average at Cooley but below average at Columbia? Because while there might be instances of somebody exceeding (or falling far below) expectations, and while those numbers don't have full predictive value, on average, I think they're going to do as well as expected... i.e. top of the class at Cooley and bottom at Columbia.

That's the entire point of the LSAT... it is correlated with law school success... even if not highly correlated.

Bumi wrote:I reject the conclusions of this empirical study because they do not hold for extreme edge cases or anecdotal exceptions, and because they do not conform to my worldview it's a pretty crappy study with an agenda

skoobily doobily wrote:it's a pretty crappy study