Study Analysis Forum

[sdgdg35]

What do you all think of this article and its attached study?: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/30/new ... raight-as/

My friends are citing this study and telling me that I am stupid to go to a T14 school and should reject it in favor of a state school because I'll likely have a higher GPA.

[Kimikho]

You can't guarantee top grades. 100% want them and 90% fail.

[Mack.Hambleton]

Is this what law professors spend their time doing lmao

[A. Nony Mouse]

I mean, I can see the point about grades making a difference. But the authors' assumptions about how much someone's grades would drop moving up the food chain (from whatever - Iowa? - to GW) appears to be pure speculation. To guarantee better grades at the lower ranked school, there would have to be a really BIG gulf between them, big enough that you're probably giving up significant job placement (and even then it's not guaranteed, although perhaps more likely).

[jarofsoup]

You know that some elite firms do not even recruit lower than the T30, so this article is a bit stupid.

[pancakes3]

I mean, I can see the point about grades making a difference. But the authors' assumptions about how much someone's grades would drop moving up the food chain (from whatever - Iowa? - to GW) appears to be pure speculation. To guarantee better grades at the lower ranked school, there would have to be a really BIG gulf between them, big enough that you're probably giving up significant job placement (and even then it's not guaranteed, although perhaps more likely).

For those who TLDR, from what I gathered in skimming the report it seems that:

1) The tiers are 1-10, 11-20, rest of the top 100, and 101+, which... is a bad idea.
2) They predict the grade bump/drop by an LSAC questionnaire asking people if they went to their first choice or not, and then "obtained estimates" from that - presumably looking at the specific GPA of those who reported attending the 2nd choice measured against SOMETHING, presumably the median of the foregone 1st choice.

But what it's basically saying is there's a stronger correlation for GPA's 3.75+ with biglaw than what ranked school you attend.

[TheodoreKGB]

.

[romothesavior]

Paging DF.

I've seen him (and maybe Rayiner?) provide some actual data on why this argument is stupid. The "grades bump" you get from going to a lower ranked school doesn't come anywhere close to making up for the sacrifice in placement power. The correlation in LSAT score also isn't all that strong. Going to a lower ranked, but still decent school drastically cuts down on your placement power, but only marginally diminishes the strength of your competition.

This scholarship and the inferences drawn therefrom is borderline reckless.

[romothesavior]

Also, the example used is fucking ridiculously stupid. GWU and UF are a hell of a lot closer in placement power than GW and say UVA.

[CanadianWolf]

After a quick read of the article, my main concern is that the article focuses on grades rather than class rank. Attending a T-14 law school typically results in more & better career options. In my opinion, the more interesting study would examine whether it is better for one to do very well at an in-state law school versus median at a T-14 law school when desiring to remain in that state; for example, is it better for one to place in the top 10% (& law review ? ) at the University of Florida if seeking permanent employment in Florida or to finish at median at the various T-14 law schools. (Would be particularly interesting for states like Texas, Arizona & Georgia which offer great in-state options.)

[pancakes3]

which is essentially LST.

[jarofsoup]

Also, the example used is fucking ridiculously stupid. GWU and UF are a hell of a lot closer in placement power than GW and say UVA.

I think the only reason why GW and UVAs placement data could have similarities is because of regions, i.e., UVA grads are in NY and DC, and so are GWs.

[romothesavior]

Also, the example used is fucking ridiculously stupid. GWU and UF are a hell of a lot closer in placement power than GW and say UVA.

I think the only reason why GW and UVAs placement data could have similarities is because of regions, i.e., UVA grads are in NY and DC, and so are GWs.

They didn't use GW and UVA, they compared Florida and GW. Their theory crumbles as soon as they start comparing T14s with even T20s.

[rondemarino]

LOL @ empirical studies from law professors, whose research is rarely, if ever, subjected to peer review.

[timbs4339]

As an illustrative hypothetical, imagine an average student (GPA 3.25‐3.5) at 47th ranked University of Florida. Using the fifth column from Table 11 (AJD regressions on salary), we can predict how her earnings would be affected under various counterfactuals. If she had attended 20th ranked George Washington University, her grades likely would have slipped to the 2.75‐3.0 range, and her salary would drop considerably (by 22%, all other factors held constant.) Even if she had managed to get a spot at 7th ranked UC Berkeley, where the tier premiums are highest, her grades likely would have fallen into the 2.5‐2.75 range, and her salary would be 7% lower. On the other hand, if she had attended 80th ranked Rutgers, she probably could have improved her grades to land in the 3.5‐3.75 range, and earned a 13% higher salary.

What fucking T14 school gives people 2.5-2.75's? The difference between UCB and UF is 5 points on the LSAT and .1 GPA. No way that busts someone down from median to bottom 5%.