Top Law Schools

Looking over applicant/admissions data on the T6, Chicago sticks out for its small number of applicants and high acceptance rate relative to its apparent peer schools: Columbia and NYU received around 9000 and 8000 applicants respectively in 2010, whereas Chicago only received 5500; this trend is consistent over at least the past decade. Of course Stanford and Yale also receive a comparatively low number of applications but what sets Chicago apart from these schools is its high acceptance (15%) and low yield rate (24%). In this same year we see Berkeley with over 8000 applicants and only a 10% acceptance rate and a 34% yield rate (Chicago has a slight, but only a slight, LSAT advantage over Berkeley).

I'm bringing this up because I think it would be interesting to see student interest/perception/popularity factored into the rankings of top schools (and I don't have the technical skills to do this). Obviously there are a bunch of factors that can't be addressed in this sort of ranking--e.g., students who don't apply to a school because they don't think they'll be accepted, schools like UVA that have figured out how to game YP, etc. Still, if a school is receiving thousands more applications, turning away thousands more, and having a higher percentage of admits choose to attend than another school, I think that should count for something. Also, if factored correctly, the much higher yield rates at Stanford and Yale together with their lower acceptance rates should offset their smaller applicant numbers in a ranking of this sort.

Oh sure why not? It's just as useless as all the rest of the criteria they use.

dextermorgan wrote:Oh sure why not? It's just as useless as all the rest of the criteria they use.

Yes it wouldn't serve any propose accept as an interesting discussion topic here. To me it is interesting that Chicago is ranked very high by some sources yet does not receive many applications (comparatively), is not very selective (comparatively), and cannot get more than a quarter of the students it admits to matriculate. And there might be other top schools like this. So I'm interested in the gap between rankings and student perception/popularity. At the very least this tells us that the usnews rankings are not a strong predictor of where students chose to aply and attend--and that's interesting to me.

Aren't you sick of receiving marketing materials from law schools? They're on my phone, my email, and all over my kitchen table. This proposal would generate so, so much more. We want to communicate to law schools that we care about money and employment outcomes -- NOT the enticements of greenwich village or whatever

We can use common sense to determine why Chicago is not as popular. It's not in NYC, it's not even in downtown Chicago, and it has a reputation for intensity/rigor.

eta: nvmnd, I thought you were proposing to add this to us news.

I don't know if this data has changed over time, but it could be that with jobs in NYC bouncing back since the recession and jobs in Chicago staying in the shitter, people who aren't tied to a particular area and just want a job decide to skip UChi....sure, UChi students have access to NYC BigLaw jobs, too, but if you aren't interested in working in Chicago, there is no advantage to going to UChi. Plus law students probably have some dumb romantic notion about spending their 20s in NYC.

One other thing I thought of was that schools with bigger classes like CLS, NYU, and Harvard have to attract a larger # of applicants to have enough people to reject to keep their selectivity rate down, so they may expend more effort persuading people to apply through unsolicited fee waivers, sending people to law school fairs, etc. UChi and other smaller schools like Y and S (if they even care about rankings) don't need as many people to apply to keep their selectivity rate down, so they don't solicit masses of people to reject.

.

banjo wrote:we care about money and employment outcomes -- NOT the enticements of greenwich village or whatever

Maybe; however:

banjo wrote:We can use common sense to determine why Chicago is not as popular. It's not in NYC, it's not even in downtown Chicago, and it has a reputation for intensity/rigor.

somewhatwayward wrote:if you aren't interested in working in Chicago, there is no advantage to going to UChi.

I'd be interested to know if that was true; however, it would go against the general idea that all the top schools have national appeal.

somewhatwayward wrote: UChi and other smaller schools like Y and S (if they even care about rankings) don't need as many people to apply to keep their selectivity rate down, so they don't solicit masses of people to reject.

But as I mentioned earlier Chicago isn't in the same class as those schools when it comes to selectivity and YP. 2010 was one of Chicago's most selective years and they still had to admit more than four times their number of seats to fill the class.

I don't want to just pick on Chicago. I think there are a couple of similar anomalous choices among the most prestigious law schools and it would be useful for applicants to know about them. I would think that your chance of getting noticed as an applicant or getting off the WL is better at the school with 3000 less applicants and a low YP, whatever the reason for the difference.

In what world is a 171 LSAT median a "slight but only a slight" advantage over a 167?

To repeat what has been said:

Chicago is located in Chicago - A lot of people don't want to be here
For those who like the city, Chicago is in Hyde Park - So you don't get the full benefit of downtown
Facilities - Our building is ugly on the outside
Law and Econ - Overblown reputation for an econ perspective here
Rigor - People somehow think we are more viciously competitive
Socially awkward - The above two lead to people thinking everyone here is some insulated academic
Medians - While OP seems unpersuaded, a 3.9/171 median is daunting and people just assume they have no chance. Chicago is not perceived as splitter friendly.

Most of those are stupid, but it is what it is. The school has a killer faculty, small class sizes, most (normal) people get jobs, and the network and resources are great.

Ling520 wrote:

somewhatwayward wrote:if you aren't interested in working in Chicago, there is no advantage to going to UChi.

I'd be interested to know if that was true; however, it would go against the general idea that all the top schools have national appeal.

Chicago is perfectly national assuming you have ties to wherever you want to go. The name alone is generally not going to allow you to go into a city you have never stepped foot into and demand being hired (potential exception for LR kids I guess, wouldn't know)

The thing is that if you know you want to be in NYC, there is no real advantage to being here since you can attend another T6 and have the same shot, plus whatever marginal networking benefits you get.

However, for people who are ambivalent between NYC and a secondary with ties, or NYC and Chicago, UChi is arguably a better bet.

2014 wrote:In what world is a 171 LSAT median a "slight but only a slight" advantage over a 167?

Medians - While OP seems unpersuaded, a 3.9/171 median is daunting and people just assume they have no chance. Chicago is not perceived as splitter friendly.

Good point. I was only looking at data from 2010 back where Berk had a stronger GPA median but lower LSAT than UChi. Since then, UChi's GPA median has surpassed Berkeley's while its LSAT median has held.

Graded LRW!!!

Yale > Stanford > Chicago > Harvard > Columbia > Penn > NYU

Well honestly I probably wouldn't attend simply because I am not a fan of the Law and Economics movement and I'm assuming that has a strong influence on the courses there. Besides I'd much rather be taught by Dworkin than Posner. Though if I had my ideal professor I'd resurrect John Rawls.

I used to think our building is ugly, but I don't anymore. I think it's charming. It reminds me of a spaceship.

If you don't like Law and Econ it's because you don't like rationality. Dworkin may be smart but he's also insufferable.

15% acceptance rate is pretty low. It's probably about even with Columbia's, and much lower than NYU's. It's much, much lower than any other non-HYS school in the T-14 besides UVA/Berkeley.

EdgarWinter wrote:I used to think our building is ugly, but I don't anymore. I think it's charming. It reminds me of a spaceship.

Compared to the rest of campus, Stanford Law's building is pretty ugly. Law school aesthetics is literally the worst criterion, but I guess everyone already knew that.

Chicago is applied to less because it's not in NYC and has little name recognition outside legal circles. That's also why they throw more money at people than pretty much anyone else, despite already having one of the lowest COA of any T14.

Because it is the place where fun goes to die

Taipei Mort

Chicago's problem is that it is Chicago.

rigor!

eric922 wrote:Well honestly I probably wouldn't attend simply because I am not a fan of the Law and Economics movement and I'm assuming that has a strong influence on the courses there. Besides I'd much rather be taught by Dworkin than Posner. Though if I had my ideal professor I'd resurrect John Rawls.

Um... +infinity

.

I think Chicago's reputation as a nerdy, conservative place turns people off. Another problem is that there is a lot of perceived Ivy envy. It seems like Chicago is a place where people are constantly convincing themselves that it's just like going to Harvard, except Harvard doesn't accept people with a 3.4/172. I visited all three of CCN for admit days, and both Columbia and NYU seemed to have better sales pitches and more secure attitudes than Chicago.

At least half of the problem has to be Hyde Park itself. Even if one accepts that Midwest is the best, Hyde Park isn't the most desirable community. We'll see what happens in a couple years given all the university's efforts at upgrading the area.