Top Law Schools

Link to the law.com article:

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... hbxlogin=1

Ladies and gentlemen -

Weigh in!

Joymin wrote:Link to the law.com article:

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... hbxlogin=1

Ladies and gentlemen -

Weigh in!

Of course grades are most important. The assumption that one's GPA will proportionally increase or decrease, whether one goes to a lower or higher ranked school seems pretty ridiculous though.

There was a multiple-page thread discussing this study a number of months ago on TLS with a link to the actual study. I'll search briefly for it, but if I don't see it I imagine OP could search for it and find it without too much difficulty if interested.

Here it is:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=125846

The link to the study is in the original post quoted section.

SWEAT IT. ALL DAY

but if you don't end up getting the grades, it sure is nice to have a name to fall back on. turns out half of everyone ends up below median; who knew?

IAFG wrote:but if you don't end up getting the grades, it sure is nice to have a name to fall back on. turns out half of everyone ends up below median; who knew?

To be fair, if the class has an odd number of people then slightly less than half end up below median.

Would you make a toss if you had the following situation:

(i) Admitted to a school ranked b/w 1 and 30, but with a negligible scholarship amount; and
(ii) Admitted to a not-so-high-ranked school (say, b/w 31 and 80), but with a fat scholly.

Joymin wrote:Would you make a toss if you had the following situation:

(i) Admitted to a school ranked b/w 1 and 30, but with a negligible scholarship amount; and
(ii) Admitted to a not-so-high-ranked school (say, b/w 31 and 80), but with a fat scholly.

not to be nit-picky but 1-30 is a pretty big range, were talking HYS all the way to Indiana/Georgia and likewise with 31-80. I think the 'poll' would be better served tightening the rankings a little (i.e. comparing T-14 vs. 15-30). Just my $0.02

St.Remy wrote: To be fair, if the class has an odd number of people then slightly less than half end up below median.

LOL

Joymin wrote:Would you make a toss if you had the following situation:

(i) Admitted to a school ranked b/w 1 and 30, but with a negligible scholarship amount; and
(ii) Admitted to a not-so-high-ranked school (say, b/w 31 and 80), but with a fat scholly.

Yeah, I'll take Yale at twice sticker over Rutgers with a $250K scholarship.

birdlaw117 wrote:

Joymin wrote:Would you make a toss if you had the following situation:

(i) Admitted to a school ranked b/w 1 and 30, but with a negligible scholarship amount; and
(ii) Admitted to a not-so-high-ranked school (say, b/w 31 and 80), but with a fat scholly.

Yeah, I'll take Yale at twice sticker over Rutgers with a $250K scholarship.

Haha, well put, I agree. 31-80 is a huge range. 1-30 is also huge. It all depends on market, career goals, competition within the area, school prospects, etc. If by (1-30) you mean t14 I would most certainly take that over, say, San Diego. However if we're talking Georgia in the 1-30 range versus Florida with a fat scholly, I take Florida by a lot. If you crunch the numbers based on job prospects, debt and interest in staying in Florida I may take Florida sticker over Georgia sticker. Not saying I would for sure, and I may get some negative opinions on it, but I would consider it.

If you have a high GPA from a shitty school, you will never have a career because you can't get a legal job in the first place.

IAFG wrote:but if you don't end up getting the grades, it sure is nice to have a name to fall back on. turns out half of everyone ends up below median; who knew?

This, precisely.

If I were a hiring partner, I'd take the #1 student at Hastings over a median student at Stanford every single time. First of all, you can bet that anyone killing grades at a T1 school is pretty smart. Secondly, I'd prefer someone who works their ass off 24/7 over someone who killed at logic games for 3 hours one day. Law firms are businesses, and at the end of the day someone competent who grinds out billables is going to make you more $ than someone brilliant who doesn't work very hard.

But for better or worse, not all hiring partners see things the way I do. In fact, I'd venture most don't. They consider other things - for instance that clients like to click through their website and see a bunch of lawyers with T14 degrees. Add to this the fact that you can't plan on finishing top-whatever%, and it makes a hell of a lot of sense to go to the best school you can, regardless of this article.

ABA publishes article making kids who pay small fortunes to attend terrible schools feel better about themselves. News at 11...

SBL wrote:

IAFG wrote:but if you don't end up getting the grades, it sure is nice to have a name to fall back on. turns out half of everyone ends up below median; who knew?

This, precisely.

+a million

Just skimmed through the actual study. A few key points;
1) for NYC biglaw, they use amlaw100 members as proxy for elite jobs. This led to:
top 10(top ~5% of law schools)=39% of NYC biglaw
top 30(top~15% of law schools)=72% of NYC biglaw
~160-170 "others"=28% of NYC biglaw

2) for all other biglaw, they use any firm of 100 or more attorneys. Major problem here. The top 3 schools, and subsequent elite distinctions, have a limited amount of graduates. Increase the pool and their percentage will drop simply due to numbers.
Still, top 10=22% of all other firms. top 30=52% of all other firms.

3) The authors notes that large firms have grown by a huge amount while top law school classes have not grown proportionately. Again, the size limitation of law school graduating classes would lead to a declining percentage coming from elite schools just by sheer number. The authors dismiss this by saying it is known that this doesnt account for "all" of the percentage change.

4) They used LSAC regression to directly estimate the gpa. This doesnt take into account the severe difference in curves between schools and assumes linearity. Most horrid use of metrics ever. Their data would suggest that a median student at a Cornell could go to a Alabama and suddenly become top 5% despite the fact that Cornell grades to a B+ curve while Bama grades to like a B-

All around horrible study. Didnt read the whole thing but what I read seemed like it was thrown together by a freshman econ major BSing their way through a quant. analysis paper.

bk187 wrote:

SBL wrote:

IAFG wrote:but if you don't end up getting the grades, it sure is nice to have a name to fall back on. turns out half of everyone ends up below median; who knew?

This, precisely.

+a million

Especially since you will probably have to work as hard, or nearly so, to get the same ranking at almost any T1 school.

MrAnon wrote:ABA publishes article making kids who pay small fortunes to attend terrible schools feel better about themselves. News at 11...

Good point.

I haven't seen a methodology that sound since... well US News grad school rankings.

IAFG wrote:but if you don't end up getting the grades, it sure is nice to have a name to fall back on. turns out half of everyone ends up below median; who knew?

I want to stuff the stockings on your avatar

SBL wrote:If I were a hiring partner, I'd take the #1 student at Hastings over a median student at Stanford every single time.

Unfortunately, this is not what actual biglaw hiring partners do. Based on a discussion I had with a partner at a v10 firm, the entire large law firm model rests on hiring grads from the TOP schools because it makes it easier to sell to their clients on their high billable hour rates (I think it's called the Cravath model). For example, if you tell a client that you have X working on his case and he is a graduate from Harvard Law school, the client feels reassured that he hired the best of the best. On the other hand, if you tell a client that you have X working on his case and he went to Joe Blow no name law school he thinks to himself ::where did this guy to law school? why am I paying this much for legal services? am I going to get sued by the shareholders if these idiots lose this case?... maybe I should just go with another large firm.:: Also, when a client hires a big name firm that has TOP law school lawyers working on his case, even if the firm loses the shareholders will think "well they hired the best lawyers and they have it their best, oh, well," unlike if the client hired "Uncle Bob's law firm," which had attorneys from schools like Cooley working on their case. Unfortunately, the truth is that the Cooley grad at Uncle Bob's law firm might, in fact, be a better lawyer than the Harvard Law grad, but that just doesn't matter.

At least this is how it was for a while, but there has been recent shift to cutting costs for legal services because these corporations can no longer afford to pay so much for legal services (because they are finding themselves in precarious financial situations).

Okay, folks. I think I hear ya all. And my understanding from this msg thread is that employers lean more towards the 'school status' than any other thing.

I have another question, and I'd like to again throw the floor open to a debate esp because I had conflicting views from two attorneys I know from my field. Both are at good positions in my field, although one is more contemporary than the other. The more contemporary among them works with a law firm, and the other actually heads the legal department in a big corporation. The latter opines that in the long term, what matters is how well you work your way up in your career, and that your school status begins to matter less as you move ahead in your career. He himself went to a school ranked b/w 70 and 80. And today he is very well recognized in my area of work. On the contrary, the other person emphasized that even your LSAT score can matter even years after you began your career. In fact, she said your LSAT and school status get 'glued' to you no matter how your work ex goes in the years that follow. I am inclined to think that it is not as black-n-white as that!

Would like to invite your inputs, if any.

XxSpyKEx wrote:

SBL wrote:If I were a hiring partner, I'd take the #1 student at Hastings over a median student at Stanford every single time.

Unfortunately, this is not what actual biglaw hiring partners do.

I think that was SBL's point.

And in regards to the above inquiry, I can't imagine that one's LSAT score would follow him or her all over. The LSAT is for law school admissions and likely shouldn't be looked at for anything else.

Joymin wrote:Link to the law.com article:

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTA ... hbxlogin=1

Ladies and gentlemen -

Weigh in!

1. Go to Columbia. Ask a dozen random 3Ls what they've got lined up for when they graduate.
2. Go to Fordham. Ask a dozen random 3Ls what they've got lined up for when they graduate.
3. Resume sweating.

Marketability? Maybe doing better at a lower ranked school is a safer bet.

But I'm trying to get into a school with a name that'll get me laid at cocktail parties.

lisjjen wrote: But I'm trying to get into a school with a name that'll get me laid at cocktail parties.

This is also credited.