Top Law Schools

They just do. I am not talking about yearly aberrations that are not representative of a school's long term rankings (sorry Arizona State) or small differences like 30 and 35. I am talking about deciding between a T14 with no money and a T 25 with a scholarship. Or a T20 with no money and a T2 with a full ride.

Rankings truly matter. The higher the school the more job opportunities you have available to you. If you are set on specific geographic area or you have a full ride somewhere then by all means go to the school that makes sense for your situation. But for the 80% of you that are choosing between one school with X scholarship and another significantly higher ranked school with less than X in a scholarship, choose the higher ranked school.

You can not count on doing well at any school. Go to the school that will give you the best chance of landing a job no matter what your grades are.

RobotGardener wrote:They just do. I am not talking about yearly aberrations that are not representative of a school's long term rankings (sorry Arizona State) or small differences like 30 and 35. I am talking about deciding between a T14 with no money and a T 25 with a scholarship. Or a T20 with no money and a T2 with a full ride.

Rankings truly matter. The higher the school the more job opportunities you have available to you. If you are set on specific geographic area or you have a full ride somewhere then by all means go to the school that makes sense for your situation. But for the 80% of you that are choosing between one school with X scholarship and another significantly higher ranked school with less than X in a scholarship, choose the higher ranked school.

You can not count on doing well at any school. Go to the school that will give you the best chance of landing a job no matter what your grades are.

YOu are fucking stupid. "PSA: Rankings Matter" then a post which just says there are good schools and bad schools.

Rankings don't matter but that doesn't mean there aren't elite school.

Hiring law partners often claim that they ignore the rankings and that they are more likely to go with familiarity. That is, if their firm has a history of recruiting successful graduates (emphasis on "successful") from certain schools, they don't tend to mess with the tried and true. There's some evidence of that, but I don't believe they ignore them completely.

On the other hand, the rankings also matter because the firms seek to cut costs by relying on schools to do their "sorting" for them. Although law bosses know this isn't the best way to recruit, they no doubt believe it's the most efficient. They are well aware that the rank of a school does little to assist them in comparing students between schools - let alone predict with much accuracy how they will perform - but they do prefer to take educated risks. Remember, lawyers are risk-averse by nature. You can always justify recruiting an accomplished Harvard douche whose attitude makes for a potentially weak future at the firm; but you cannot justify recruiting the accomplished Syracuse douche who doesn't predict well.

Still, none of this suggests that recruiting is a zero-sum game. Rankings matter in some respects but are irrelevant in others.

The reason certan schools are ranked in the T14 because of self-fulfilling prophecy...long histories of being well regarded, and the firms recruit from those schools accordingly. If the firms began en masse recruiting solely at TT and TTT schools, they could find just as many, if not more talented law graduates with great futures, and they could avoid the entitled attitudes of students from higher ranked schools - attitudes that often lead to failure. But they couldn't do it without spending a great deal more money on travel, interviews, background checks, summer internships, etc.

RobotGardener wrote:They just do. I am not talking about yearly aberrations that are not representative of a school's long term rankings (sorry Arizona State) or small differences like 30 and 35. I am talking about deciding between a T14 with no money and a T 25 with a scholarship. Or a T20 with no money and a T2 with a full ride.

Rankings truly matter. The higher the school the more job opportunities you have available to you. If you are set on specific geographic area or you have a full ride somewhere then by all means go to the school that makes sense for your situation. But for the 80% of you that are choosing between one school with X scholarship and another significantly higher ranked school with less than X in a scholarship, choose the higher ranked school.

You can not count on doing well at any school. Go to the school that will give you the best chance of landing a job no matter what your grades are.

Yea... so rankings matter except when they don't. Cool.

PDaddy wrote:
The reason certan schools are ranked in the T14 because of self-fulfilling prophecy...long histories of being well regarded, and the firms recruit from those schools accordingly. If the firms began en masse recruiting solely at TT and TTT schools, they could find just as many, if not more talented law graduates with great futures, and they could avoid the entitled attitudes of students from higher ranked schools - attitudes that often lead to failure. But they couldn't do it without spending a great deal more money on travel, interviews, background checks, summer internships, etc.

Bitter TTT student?

PDaddy wrote: The reason certan schools are ranked in the T14 because of self-fulfilling prophecy...long histories of being well regarded, and the firms recruit from those schools accordingly. If the firms began en masse recruiting solely at TT and TTT schools, they could find just as many, if not more talented law graduates with great futures, and they could avoid the entitled attitudes of students from higher ranked schools - attitudes that often lead to failure. But they couldn't do it without spending a great deal more money on travel, interviews, background checks, summer internships, etc.

I'm pretty sure there are tests and criteria suggesting this is not true. If you didn't do that well on the LSAT and you didn't do that well in school, then chances are you are in fact not as academically talented. It sounds pompous but it is just not something to be argued, if students at TT or TTT schools are so talented and motivated with such great futures why aren't they already in powerful positions to hire at big firms? That's right, because they're bartending to pay down law school debt.

arewehavingfunyet wrote:

PDaddy wrote: The reason certan schools are ranked in the T14 because of self-fulfilling prophecy...long histories of being well regarded, and the firms recruit from those schools accordingly. If the firms began en masse recruiting solely at TT and TTT schools, they could find just as many, if not more talented law graduates with great futures, and they could avoid the entitled attitudes of students from higher ranked schools - attitudes that often lead to failure. But they couldn't do it without spending a great deal more money on travel, interviews, background checks, summer internships, etc.

I'm pretty sure there are tests and criteria suggesting this is not true. If you didn't do that well on the LSAT and you didn't do that well in school, then chances are you are in fact not as academically talented. It sounds pompous but it is just not something to be argued, if students at TT or TTT schools are so talented and motivated with such great futures why aren't they already in powerful positions to hire at big firms? That's right, because they're bartending to pay down law school debt.

You shouldn't conflate poor academic performance with a lack of academic talent-- people underperform for cultural and environmental reasons. However, for the purposes of law firm recruiting, it makes sense to hire those who have demonstrated academic aptitude.

MrPapagiorgio wrote:No, they don't.

This post was not in reference to that type of movement, hence my qualification in the OP.

This was in reference to all these people posting their acceptances and then weighing a 90k scholly at BU vs sticker at NYU. The obvious answer to me is NYU but TLS has moved in a very debt averse direction that has people considering lower ranked schools over higher ranked schools with better job prospects.

I disagree with that advice and I am voicing my opinion about it.

Your actual point seems to be "school quality and reputation matter." This is uncontroversial and nobody will disagree. The reason the rankings are stupid is because they do not accurately reflect quality or reputation.

arewehavingfunyet wrote:

PDaddy wrote: The reason certan schools are ranked in the T14 because of self-fulfilling prophecy...long histories of being well regarded, and the firms recruit from those schools accordingly. If the firms began en masse recruiting solely at TT and TTT schools, they could find just as many, if not more talented law graduates with great futures, and they could avoid the entitled attitudes of students from higher ranked schools - attitudes that often lead to failure. But they couldn't do it without spending a great deal more money on travel, interviews, background checks, summer internships, etc.

I'm pretty sure there are tests and criteria suggesting this is not true. If you didn't do that well on the LSAT and you didn't do that well in school, then chances are you are in fact not as academically talented. It sounds pompous but it is just not something to be argued, if students at TT or TTT schools are so talented and motivated with such great futures why aren't they already in powerful positions to hire at big firms? That's right, because they're bartending to pay down law school debt.

Lol. Your last sentence makes you sound like a douche.

Students at TT and TTT schools aren't hiring partners not because of their lack of academic prowess, but because of things like good ol' boy networks and elitism. LSAT has very little correlation to academic talent or intelligence. And not doing well at any school has more to do with effort than academic talent. A fair number of reputable firms in Michigan have Cooley Alum as hiring partners. That isn't the only example, either. The advantage of going to Harvard is that people going to Harvard (one of the first law schools associated with a university) is that Harvard alums did well 150 years ago, so now they disproportionately fill seats of power... not because their students are that much smarter. What is the difference between a 161 that gets you into a TT with a scholarship and the 170 that gets you into a T14? Less than 15 questions on a 120 question test if I recall correctly.

Something makes me think OP has no conception of $250,000+ debt.

moneybagsphd wrote:However, for the purposes of law firm recruiting, it makes sense to hire those who have demonstrated academic aptitude.

Is there any real correlation between academic aptitude and success in the practice of law though? T14 grads disproportionately fail to make partner in comparison to their TT counterparts, and people like Baez prove you don't need to go to a T14 to win the shit out of what looks like the biggest losing case of all time.

spleenworship wrote:

arewehavingfunyet wrote:

PDaddy wrote: The reason certan schools are ranked in the T14 because of self-fulfilling prophecy...long histories of being well regarded, and the firms recruit from those schools accordingly. If the firms began en masse recruiting solely at TT and TTT schools, they could find just as many, if not more talented law graduates with great futures, and they could avoid the entitled attitudes of students from higher ranked schools - attitudes that often lead to failure. But they couldn't do it without spending a great deal more money on travel, interviews, background checks, summer internships, etc.

I'm pretty sure there are tests and criteria suggesting this is not true. If you didn't do that well on the LSAT and you didn't do that well in school, then chances are you are in fact not as academically talented. It sounds pompous but it is just not something to be argued, if students at TT or TTT schools are so talented and motivated with such great futures why aren't they already in powerful positions to hire at big firms? That's right, because they're bartending to pay down law school debt.

Lol. Your last sentence makes you sound like a douche.

Students at TT and TTT schools aren't hiring partners not because of their lack of academic prowess, but because of things like good ol' boy networks and elitism. LSAT has very little correlation to academic talent or intelligence. And not doing well at any school has more to do with effort than academic talent. A fair number of reputable firms in Michigan have Cooley Alum as hiring partners. That isn't the only example, either. The advantage of going to Harvard is that people going to Harvard (one of the first law schools associated with a university) is that Harvard alums did well 150 years ago, so now they disproportionately fill seats of power... not because their students are that much smarter. What is the difference between a 161 that gets you into a TT with a scholarship and the 170 that gets you into a T14? Less than 15 questions on a 120 question test if I recall correctly.

That might be so (and I'm not so sure that it is), but the LSAT is so imminently learnable that if you don't do well on it then maybe you don't have the work ethic or common sense (not sure if that's the best phrase, but whatever) to succeed in law school or as an associate.

spleenworship wrote:

moneybagsphd wrote:However, for the purposes of law firm recruiting, it makes sense to hire those who have demonstrated academic aptitude.

Is there any real correlation between academic aptitude and success in the practice of law though? T14 grads disproportionately fail to make partner in comparison to their TT counterparts, and people like Baez prove you don't need to go to a T14 to win the shit out of what looks like the biggest losing case of all time.

That's because grads of elite law schools know that biglaw is a shitty job, but an elite resume item that will lead to better jobs.

bernaldiaz wrote:

spleenworship wrote:

arewehavingfunyet wrote:

PDaddy wrote: The reason certan schools are ranked in the T14 because of self-fulfilling prophecy...long histories of being well regarded, and the firms recruit from those schools accordingly. If the firms began en masse recruiting solely at TT and TTT schools, they could find just as many, if not more talented law graduates with great futures, and they could avoid the entitled attitudes of students from higher ranked schools - attitudes that often lead to failure. But they couldn't do it without spending a great deal more money on travel, interviews, background checks, summer internships, etc.

I'm pretty sure there are tests and criteria suggesting this is not true. If you didn't do that well on the LSAT and you didn't do that well in school, then chances are you are in fact not as academically talented. It sounds pompous but it is just not something to be argued, if students at TT or TTT schools are so talented and motivated with such great futures why aren't they already in powerful positions to hire at big firms? That's right, because they're bartending to pay down law school debt.

Lol. Your last sentence makes you sound like a douche.

Students at TT and TTT schools aren't hiring partners not because of their lack of academic prowess, but because of things like good ol' boy networks and elitism. LSAT has very little correlation to academic talent or intelligence. And not doing well at any school has more to do with effort than academic talent. A fair number of reputable firms in Michigan have Cooley Alum as hiring partners. That isn't the only example, either. The advantage of going to Harvard is that people going to Harvard (one of the first law schools associated with a university) is that Harvard alums did well 150 years ago, so now they disproportionately fill seats of power... not because their students are that much smarter. What is the difference between a 161 that gets you into a TT with a scholarship and the 170 that gets you into a T14? Less than 15 questions on a 120 question test if I recall correctly.

That might be so (and I'm not so sure that it is), but the LSAT is so imminently learnable that if you don't do well on it then maybe you don't have the work ethic or common sense (not sure if that's the best phrase, but whatever) to succeed in law school or as an associate.

This. Also, I think your post underestimates the difference between scoring in the 170s and the low 160s. Yes, the difference is around 15 questions, but presumably the person scoring in the low 160s is missing the more difficult questions.

moneybagsphd wrote: That's because grads of elite law schools know that biglaw is a shitty job, but an elite resume item that will lead to better jobs.

Source?

You think those of us at the TT-TTTs aren't aware how shitty a biglaw job is? LOL!

moneybagsphd wrote: This. Also, I think your post underestimates the difference between scoring in the 170s and the low 160s. Yes, the difference is around 15 questions, but presumably the person scoring in the low 160s is missing the more difficult questions.

1) red herring, since my original point was about networks and elitism
2) since the test is learnable, those 15 questions have more to do with effort than intelligence or academic talent, again proving my point.

bernaldiaz wrote:
That might be so (and I'm not so sure that it is), but the LSAT is so imminently learnable that if you don't do well on it then maybe you don't have the work ethic or common sense (not sure if that's the best phrase, but whatever) to succeed in law school or as an associate.

Most people aren't aware the test is learnable. Until I came to TLS, I didn't know that. It isn't common sense, since the makers of the test claim it isn't learnable, and why wouldn't you believe them?

spleenworship wrote:

moneybagsphd wrote: That's because grads of elite law schools know that biglaw is a shitty job, but an elite resume item that will lead to better jobs.

Source?

You think those of us at the TT-TTTs aren't aware how shitty a biglaw job is? LOL!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... iIF3Cs2bLw

RobotGardener wrote:

MrPapagiorgio wrote:No, they don't.

This post was not in reference to that type of movement, hence my qualification in the OP.

This was in reference to all these people posting their acceptances and then weighing a 90k scholly at BU vs sticker at NYU. The obvious answer to me is NYU but TLS has moved in a very debt averse direction that has people considering lower ranked schools over higher ranked schools with better job prospects.

I disagree with that advice and I am voicing my opinion about it.

I took a T30 at full scholarship over higher-ranked schools. Will I regret it? Maybe, if I don't have a solid job at graduation. But I am glad to know that my employment options are not going to be restricted by focusing on a job that allows me to pay off the debt that got me the job.

spleenworship wrote:

moneybagsphd wrote: This. Also, I think your post underestimates the difference between scoring in the 170s and the low 160s. Yes, the difference is around 15 questions, but presumably the person scoring in the low 160s is missing the more difficult questions.

1) red herring, since my original point was about networks and elitism
2) since the test is learnable, those 15 questions have more to do with effort than intelligence or academic talent, again proving my point.

That's a pretty silly point you just made; A huge part of any person's success in academics has to do with effort. The facts of the Civil War are learnable. Calculus is learnable. I only have the grades that I do because of effort. Sure, I probably have enough "intelligence" to have coasted to a 3.3 or whatever, but the rest of my success is directly tied to how much work I put in. Same with the LSAT. My cold diagnostic was a 163, so yeah I guess that makes me pretty "intelligent" but it was the 500 hours of studying that helped me solidly get into the 170's. That formula isn't going to change in law school or in any profession. You need brains, and will-power. I think that makes the LSAT a pretty darn good test, because it tests both.

bernaldiaz wrote:

spleenworship wrote:

moneybagsphd wrote: This. Also, I think your post underestimates the difference between scoring in the 170s and the low 160s. Yes, the difference is around 15 questions, but presumably the person scoring in the low 160s is missing the more difficult questions.

1) red herring, since my original point was about networks and elitism
2) since the test is learnable, those 15 questions have more to do with effort than intelligence or academic talent, again proving my point.

That's a pretty silly point you just made; A huge part of any person's success in academics has to do with effort. The facts of the Civil War are learnable. Calculus is learnable. I only have the grades that I do because of effort. Sure, I probably have enough "intelligence" to have coasted to a 3.3 or whatever, but the rest of my success is directly tied to how much work I put in. Same with the LSAT. My cold diagnostic was a 163, so yeah I guess that makes me pretty "intelligent" but it was the 500 hours of studying that helped me solidly get into the 170's. That formula isn't going to change in law school or in any profession. You need brains, and will-power. I think that makes the LSAT a pretty darn good test, because it tests both.

see previous response to you, that you conveniently ignore:

spleenworship wrote:
Most people aren't aware the test is learnable. Until I came to TLS, I didn't know that. It isn't common sense, since the makers of the test claim it isn't learnable, and why wouldn't you believe them?

Sure they do

T1= Yale

TT= Stanford

everything else is TTT or worse

spleenworship wrote:

bernaldiaz wrote:

spleenworship wrote:

moneybagsphd wrote: This. Also, I think your post underestimates the difference between scoring in the 170s and the low 160s. Yes, the difference is around 15 questions, but presumably the person scoring in the low 160s is missing the more difficult questions.

1) red herring, since my original point was about networks and elitism
2) since the test is learnable, those 15 questions have more to do with effort than intelligence or academic talent, again proving my point.

That's a pretty silly point you just made; A huge part of any person's success in academics has to do with effort. The facts of the Civil War are learnable. Calculus is learnable. I only have the grades that I do because of effort. Sure, I probably have enough "intelligence" to have coasted to a 3.3 or whatever, but the rest of my success is directly tied to how much work I put in. Same with the LSAT. My cold diagnostic was a 163, so yeah I guess that makes me pretty "intelligent" but it was the 500 hours of studying that helped me solidly get into the 170's. That formula isn't going to change in law school or in any profession. You need brains, and will-power. I think that makes the LSAT a pretty darn good test, because it tests both.

see previous response to you, that you conveniently ignore:

spleenworship wrote:
Most people aren't aware the test is learnable. Until I came to TLS, I didn't know that. It isn't common sense, since the makers of the test claim it isn't learnable, and why wouldn't you believe them?

Sorry dude, I missed that. Well, I gotta say if you are going to invest 3 years and 200K into law school the onus is on you to do research and learn about the admissions process and the LSAT. That's just the only responsible thing to do when the cost is so high. I don't really feel bad for anyone who doesn't know they need to study for the LSAT. Once again, if you didn't even look into your huge investment of time and money enough to learn some pretty basic facts about the process, that might say something about the type of student/person you are (that might be a little harsh, but whatever).

spleenworship wrote: 1) red herring, since my original point was about networks and elitism

spleenworship wrote: LSAT has very little correlation to academic talent or intelligence. And not doing well at any school has more to do with effort than academic talent. A fair number of reputable firms in Michigan have Cooley Alum as hiring partners. That isn't the only example, either. The advantage of going to Harvard is that people going to Harvard (one of the first law schools associated with a university) is that Harvard alums did well 150 years ago, so now they disproportionately fill seats of power... not because their students are that much smarter. What is the difference between a 161 that gets you into a TT with a scholarship and the 170 that gets you into a T14? Less than 15 questions on a 120 question test if I recall correctly.

spleenworship wrote:2) since the test is learnable, those 15 questions have more to do with effort than intelligence or academic talent, again proving my point.

While the test is "learnable" in the sense that nearly everyone can improve from their diagnostic score, not everyone can get a 180. In fact, many people have trouble breaking the 160s and beyond. You have to prove you can get X score.