Top Law Schools

Do you guys think that there is any difference between prospects for T2, TTT and TTTT schools? It seems like outside of the T1, all schools are regional with a FEW exceptions... Obviously Thomas Jefferson, Cooley and Appalachian are death traps. But is there really a difference between, say, The University of Montana (TTT), University of Cincinnati (T2), and The University of North Dakota (TTTT)?

I submit that there is not. I really doubt v100 firms, Art III Courts or Fed Agencies distinguish...Right?


EDIT: please no 0L's

I think it depends on the market. South Carolina Law is T2 (nearly TTT) yet has great placement in the state market partly due to absence of competition. For SC natives, it is a very rational school choice.

Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

TTT_allstar wrote:

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

No matter what they're selling, don't buy those employment numbers.

TTT_allstar wrote:

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

LOL

You need to use Law School Transparency friend.

TTT_allstar wrote:

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

Not sure if you're trolling, but I'm talking about the real full-time legal employment numbers, not the bullshit the schools spout on their front pages.

fundamentallybroken wrote:

TTT_allstar wrote:

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

No matter what they're selling, don't buy those employment numbers.

While your comment obviously has a great deal of truth to it with regard to many schools' employment numbers, I tend to believe those numbers with regard to schools that have a monopoly on their respective states' markets. That is why I chose the examples that I did.

TTT_allstar wrote:

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

Remember that "employed" includes Starbucks baristas. Check out lawschooltransparency, and those three schools range from 53-69% of graduates in "real" legal jobs (long-term, bar passage required, not solo practitioners).

ETA: Scooped

TTT_allstar wrote:Do you guys think that there is any difference between prospects for T2, TTT and TTTT schools? It seems like outside of the T1, all schools are regional with a FEW exceptions... Obviously Thomas Jefferson, Cooley and Appalachian are death traps. But is there really a difference between, say, The University of Montana (TTT), University of Cincinnati (T2), and The University of North Dakota (TTTT)?

I submit that there is not. I really doubt v100 firms, Art III Courts or Fed Agencies distinguish...Right?

A lot of states that are not very populous only have A TTT or TTTT law school. Graduates from these schools typically end up working in that state, and the degree is pretty much limited to that state ( unless you have amazing ties to a neighboring state/ city/town on the border of one state and the lawschool's state).

I'm sure that firms within those states place a huge emphasis on ties to the state and may view their state flagship school in high esteem, regardless of what the rankings may dictate. I would venture a guess that some firms would take their local grad over a H, Y, S grad because of the perceived flight risk of the latter (again ties are very important)

Just a guess.

TTT_allstar wrote:

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

All of those are examples of strong regionals that are worth attending under the proper circumstances but none of those have employment numbers that are anywhere near what you quoted.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/montana/2013/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/cincinnati/2013/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... kota/2013/

TTT_allstar wrote:

fundamentallybroken wrote:

TTT_allstar wrote:

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

No matter what they're selling, don't buy those employment numbers.

While your comment obviously has a great deal of truth to it with regard to many schools' employment numbers, I tend to believe those numbers with regard to schools that have a monopoly on their respective states' markets. That is why I chose the examples that I did.

There's no such thing as a monopoly in state markets anymore. Smaller, regional law schools may dominate somewhat in placement for their respective states, but don't kid yourself for a second that an employer in those states wouldn't take an HYS grad with ties over a local grad. I'm in Colorado, where the two local schools place very well, but we still have to compete with T14 schools for the limited jobs available.

The numbers you gave are likely the percentages of grads employed that actually responded to the schools' surveys. The unemployed are typically a pretty quiet bunch.

Turtledove wrote:

TTT_allstar wrote:

NorCalLaw wrote:Do you consider the difference between a 25% shot and a 50% shot at a job to be significant? If so, then yes, these schools vary a great deal, albeit not in a linear manner w/r/t their supposed rankings.

Yes, a 25 percent difference in employment prospects is significant. However, U Montana (94 % employed in 9 mos); U North Dakota (90 % employed); U Cin (97 %).... Seems more like a 3 percent difference. Therefore, your point is moot.

All of those are examples of strong regionals that are worth attending under the proper circumstances but none of those have employment numbers that are anywhere near what you quoted.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/montana/2013/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/cincinnati/2013/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/ ... kota/2013/

NOTE THAT OF THE 3, CINCINNATI (T2) HAS THE LOWEST EMPLOYMENT NUMBER, AND MONTANA (TTT), HAS THE HIGHEST.

I believe that this is called "case in point."

Rankings don't matter. That's like rule number one around here. You aren't making a profound point at all.

Mal Reynolds wrote:Rankings don't matter. That's like rule number one around here. You aren't making a profound point at all.

Why is your avatar a picture of Ward Stradlater?

Also, TLSers loooove rankings. If someone posted a thread asking Cincinnati or Montana, everyone would scoff at them for even asking.

Anyway, that's largely what I was driving at: outside of the top 35-40, it just doesn't matter at all. Go to your local school.

TTT_allstar wrote:Also, TLSers loooove rankings. If someone posted a thread asking Cincinnati or Montana, everyone would scoff at them for even asking.

Please show evidence of this.

TTT_allstar wrote:Also, TLSers loooove rankings. If someone posted a thread asking Cincinnati or Montana, everyone would scoff at them for even asking.

Anyway, that's largely what I was driving at: outside of the top 35-40, it just doesn't matter at all. Go to your local school.

What? They would scoff at them for asking because literally nobody should be trying to decide between Cinci or Montana. Yes, pick the local school. But, TLS would scoff if people were going into significant debt to go to either of those schools.

Mal Reynolds wrote:Rankings don't matter. That's like rule number one around here. You aren't making a profound point at all.

QFT

Mal Reynolds wrote:

TTT_allstar wrote:Also, TLSers loooove rankings. If someone posted a thread asking Cincinnati or Montana, everyone would scoff at them for even asking.

Please show evidence of this.

I could, but I don't want to spend a whole bunch of time sorting through 6 year old dead threads.

Anyway, it seems like the conventch wisdom on TLS is that you go to the best school you can get into.

And BTW it's really not a bad idea to take on debt to go to a strong regional school. People act like HYS are the only schools worth going to at sticker. Any of the T30 at sticker are fine. As well as any strong regional. People get into trouble when they go to a school like Hofstra at sticker... They have to compete with H,Y,N,C,C etc grads- even for regional jobs. If Hoffy grads aren't top 30, they're in deep ass shit.

TTT_allstar wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:

TTT_allstar wrote:Also, TLSers loooove rankings. If someone posted a thread asking Cincinnati or Montana, everyone would scoff at them for even asking.

Please show evidence of this.

I could, but I don't want to spend a whole bunch of time sorting through 6 year old dead threads.

Anyway, it seems like the conventch wisdom on TLS is that you go to the best school you can get into.

And BTW it's really not a bad idea to take on debt to go to a strong regional school. People act like HYS are the only schools worth going to at sticker. Any of the T30 at sticker are fine. As well as any strong regional. People get into trouble when they go to a school like Hofstra at sticker... They have to compete with H,Y,N,C,C etc grads- even for regional jobs. If Hoffy grads aren't top 30, they're in deep ass shit.

T30s at sticker are certainly not fine.

Mal Reynolds wrote:

TTT_allstar wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:

TTT_allstar wrote:Also, TLSers loooove rankings. If someone posted a thread asking Cincinnati or Montana, everyone would scoff at them for even asking.

Please show evidence of this.

I could, but I don't want to spend a whole bunch of time sorting through 6 year old dead threads.

Anyway, it seems like the conventch wisdom on TLS is that you go to the best school you can get into.

And BTW it's really not a bad idea to take on debt to go to a strong regional school. People act like HYS are the only schools worth going to at sticker. Any of the T30 at sticker are fine. As well as any strong regional. People get into trouble when they go to a school like Hofstra at sticker... They have to compete with H,Y,N,C,C etc grads- even for regional jobs. If Hoffy grads aren't top 30, they're in deep ass shit.

T30s at sticker are certainly not fine.

Please show evidence of this. ^^^^

TTT_allstar wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote: T30s at sticker are certainly not fine.

Please show evidence of this. ^^^^

Are you willing to stipulate that taking out loans to pay sticker and not landing biglaw puts you in a world of hurt, debt-wise?

TTT_allstar wrote:

Mal Reynolds wrote:

TTT_allstar wrote:Also, TLSers loooove rankings. If someone posted a thread asking Cincinnati or Montana, everyone would scoff at them for even asking.

Please show evidence of this.

I could, but I don't want to spend a whole bunch of time sorting through 6 year old dead threads.

Anyway, it seems like the conventch wisdom on TLS is that you go to the best school you can get into.

And BTW it's really not a bad idea to take on debt to go to a strong regional school. People act like HYS are the only schools worth going to at sticker. Any of the T30 at sticker are fine. As well as any strong regional. People get into trouble when they go to a school like Hofstra at sticker... They have to compete with H,Y,N,C,C etc grads- even for regional jobs. If Hoffy grads aren't top 30, they're in deep ass shit.

That really isn't TLS conventional wisdom at all. TLS conventional wisdom is that you should attend a school that makes sense with your career objectives at a prcie at whoch you can reasonably pay off the debt. Conventional wisdom would definitely state that one should attend Montana for free over USC at sticker if one is onay with small law in Montana for instance.

Last time I checked, University of Iowa grads and University of Washington grads were doing just fine.