Top Law Schools

Just wondering if there are school specifically in the 1st Tier that you think are over/underrated? Where are they now? Where should they be?

Univ of Kansas is a local school I was considering until they plummeted from 65th to 79th.

Baylor is now school I would now look at because they jumped 10-15 spots.

Emory is another school that dropped 10 spots...Do you think these drops and upticks are justifiable and accurate?

Two issues I guess, but curious on your thoughts.

Year to year USNWR ranking shifts outside the top 20-odd schools (and even in there, too, probably), don't mean shit.

Best explanation I've heard about the rankings:

SilverE2 wrote:

publiusjr wrote:What is the forumula used?

Below the top 30, they take all of the schools mix them up in a hat, and pull them out randomly.

They do the same for 20-30.

Then for 1-20 they keep the same rankings they've had for the past twenty years and just shift individual schools up or down a spot or two.

Except WUSTL. WUSTL they move up a spot a year.

Kansas is no less of a solid regional (as in, pretty much KC only) than it was before the rankings drop. No one who would potentially be hiring you is going to know, or care even if they do know. Their jobs at graduation have fallen ITE, but so have everyone's. If you were thinking about going there because you want to work in the KC area, nothing has changed.

Don't use US rankings. Use Go to law schools or another anking based on biglaw + clerkship rankings.

Even if you don't want biglaw, the more people that get biglaw from your school, the better chance you have at getting a decent job - or just a job at all - because there will be a lot less competition for jobs in the area from your school.


This means that even despite the lower rankings in News, SMU > University of Iowa or UMinnesota. And Wake Forest > UNC.

IU overrated
UIUC overrated

WSJ_Law wrote:IU overrated
UIUC overrated

Why?

Gail wrote:Don't use US rankings. Use Go to law schools or another anking based on biglaw + clerkship rankings.

Even if you don't want biglaw, the more people that get biglaw from your school, the better chance you have at getting a decent job - or just a job at all - because there will be a lot less competition for jobs in the area from your school.


This means that even despite the lower rankings in News, SMU > University of Iowa or UMinnesota. And Wake Forest > UNC.

This is terrible advice. Outside the T20 (and even to a large extent inside the T20) then region/city matters more than anything. If you want to work in Dallas, SMU > University of Iowa. If you want to work in Iowa, U of Iowa > SMU. If you want to work in Minnesota, U of Minnesota > SMU or U of Iowa.

Unless you're going to a T14, what you should do is look at the region/city you want to work in, and then consider the relative rank/strength of schools in that market. Even within the T14, you should only consider yourself strong there if you have ties there. For example, Dallas is probably T14-with-ties/UT > SMU > Baylor/UH > Texas Wesleyan (apologies if I left out a school, this is just a rudimentary example). Seattle market is probably T14-with-ties > UW > Seattle.

Ratings/rankings only matter to the extent they can get you a job. I'd rate SMU very poorly for anyone seeking work in Boston or L.A., but not terribly for Dallas.

Van Winkle, would you say that all things remaining equal (no regional preference or ties to each market) then you go to the school that places best in biglaw?

I should have said all things remaining equal. With that caveat, I think that my advice is fairly good.

Gail wrote:Van Winkle, would you say that all things remaining equal (no regional preference or ties to each market) then you go to the school that places best in biglaw?

It's hard to get a jerb nowadays in a place where you aren't a homer, even if you go to the local school.

Yeah. That's my concern. I worded what I said poorly (again... sigh... I need a new language). I meant that if you had ties to Iowa and Texas (as an example) and had no regional preference to either then SMU would be a better option than Iowa.

That should be stressed too though. Go where you can get a job, not just where you want to practice.

Indiana University - Bloomington.

Highly overrated. They got a big infusion of scholarship money, and renamed the school after the donor. Then they used that money to increase the LSAT score. That is great and all, but they don't have the ability to place you in a job. Last I checked they were ranked 23. They should be like 40-50.

But...they are a good school for an education. They have great teachers. Just expect to be unemployed when you graduate.

Gail wrote:Van Winkle, would you say that all things remaining equal (no regional preference or ties to each market) then you go to the school that places best in biglaw?

I should have said all things remaining equal. With that caveat, I think that my advice is fairly good.

All things are not equal. Regional preference and ties to market are enormous factors in hiring, and the real point of going to law school is to get a job as a lawyer (for most people anyway). If you're talking about a non-T14 that isn't in a region you want to work, and you have no ties to anywhere else, then you should just not go to law school.

Gail wrote:I worded what I said poorly (again... sigh... I need a new language). I meant that if you had ties to Iowa and Texas (as an example) and had no regional preference to either then SMU would be a better option than Iowa.

In this case you basically have to pick your job market beforehand. If you really want a job in Texas, then SMU > Iowa. If you really want to be in Iowa, then Iowa > SMU. Job placement will be better from SMU because of the better Texas market, but that just goes into whether you really want a job in Texas more.

I don't think it really makes much of a difference either way when it comes to actual jobs. --LinkRemoved--

Vanwinkle, I'm not sure why you're refusing to grant his amended point. Sure, his original point, as written, was erroneous, but his modified point is pretty much exactly what you're writing even as you disagree with him. If you don't care in the slightest whether you're in Iowa or in Texas, and you have ties to both, and all you care about is that you get a good job in either or Iowa or Texas (again, zero preference to either one), then SMU is generally TCR, despite its lower ranking. Right?

Edit: No idea why I'm even posting in this thread, as I don't care. Plus, VW's larger point is much important and relevant than this minor point, as who is perfectly apathetic between Texas and Iowa?

northside wrote:

WSJ_Law wrote:IU overrated
UIUC overrated

Why?

UIUC ranked top 25 with a median of 163 htmfh

whitman wrote:Vanwinkle, I'm not sure why you're refusing to grant his amended point. Sure, his original point, as written, was erroneous, but his modified point is pretty much exactly what you're writing even as you disagree with him.

That second part wasn't a disagreement, it was more like an addition.

WSJ_Law wrote:

northside wrote:

WSJ_Law wrote:IU overrated
UIUC overrated

Why?

UIUC ranked top 25 with a median of 163 htmfh

I LOL'd.

Yeah, that's the definition of overrated. Rated highly because of blatantly falsified data on a HUGE scale.

I think they still have decent employment prospects though FWIW.

WSJ_Law wrote:

northside wrote:

WSJ_Law wrote:IU overrated
UIUC overrated

Why?

UIUC ranked top 25 with a median of 163 htmfh

Yet their biglaw placement is still right there alongside the other Midwestern T20 peers. I think overrated isn't quite the right word.

any T50 schools placement don't quite live up to their ranking?

Jah'rakal wrote:any T50 schools placement don't quite live up to their ranking?

Most schools from T50 on down barely even deserve to be accredited.

Jah'rakal wrote:any T50 schools placement don't quite live up to their ranking?

All of them?

Underrated: School I go to
Overrated: School you go to

/thread

In preparing for finals, I compared/contrasted my outlines with several commerical ones from Harvard, NYU, Columbia, etc.

It's, like, all the same.

#rankingsarecontinuouslyperpetuatedillusionswheninfactwearealllearningthesamematerial

introversional wrote:In preparing for finals, I compared/contrasted my outlines with several commerical ones from Harvard, NYU, Columbia, etc.

It's, like, all the same.

#rankingsarecontinuouslyperpetuatedillusionswheninfactwearealllearningthesamematerial

This is what I read:

"Schools ranked 1-6 are practically the same, which proves that 1-200 all are."

Also, of course we're all learning the same material. It's not like there's some form of mathematics that only the Ivy League schools teach, either.