Top Law Schools

I would assume that schools in the T20 attract some of the best qualified professors to teach their students, but what about T50 or even T100 schools? Is there a drop-off in quality there because all the good professors took jobs at the higher-ranked schools, while the rest of the field was forced to go into lower-ranked schools?

It's unfortunate that quality of education is left out of most discussions on choosing a law school- everyone's focused on ranking, scholarship amount or geographic location, and no one talks about the quality of legal education we'll receive. I went to a lower-ranked undergraduate school, and I can tell you that the quality of professors makes a BIG difference in your overall experience at the school (in my case, it didn't work out so well, and I suffered through my third and fourth year courses with horribly unqualified TAs teaching high-level subjects). I'm not saying that'll be the case in law school, but it might very well be that the professors at the lower ranked schools are just plain bad, and they'll do nothing to prepare us for legal practice.

Thoughts?

The first thing you have to do is define “bad professor.” Legal academia (as with academia generally) is such a ridiculously competitive field that all profs have extremely high qualifications in terms of where they got their degree and their publication record; there are no “bad” profs in that regard. None of those things guarantee a person will be a good teacher, but quality of teaching isn’t correlated with the rankings. And it’s not what profs are rewarded for, professionally - that’s doing research/publishing. All law schools have some great teachers, some terrible teachers, and some in between. (Also note that not everyone agrees on what makes a prof a bad teacher.) When you enroll at a given school you can talk to the students already there to figure out which profs are good and which to avoid.

People don’t talk about quality of education largely because you will get the same quality of education at every law school, in terms of content and coverage. It’s a professional degree, regulated by the ABA. All schools have to cover the same material and prepare students to take the same bar exam. So there isn’t really a difference in the quality of the education.

There is a fairly broad consensus that higher-ranked schools teach more about critical thinking/the law as an academic subject, while lower-ranked schools tend to teach more black-letter law. A lot of this is related to bar passage rates (lower-ranked schools tend to try to teach to the test). Whether one or the other of those approaches better prepares you for legal practice is also subjective, depending on what you think is the best preparation for practice. Frankly, I think most people don’t think any law schools really prepare students especially well for legal practice.

There are two things that will make a difference in your law school educational experience: 1) the quality of the students in class with you (I don’t think this is a clear dramatic drop off, because there are always smart people who go to lower ranked schools for various reasons, and some people with very high test scores/GPAs can be intellectual duds and classmates, but as you go down the rankings your classmates will have lower test scores/GPAs for what that’s worth); and 2) the educational opportunities the school provides, which are largely about how rich the school is and where it’s located. Top ranked, rich schools tend to offer more clinics, for instance, and the bigger the city in which a school is located, the more internships are available. But even a poor school in a more rural area can offer a lot of the basics (like a criminal defense clinic, a prosecution clinic, probably family law/legal aid, that kind of thing).

I think there is some drop off in quality, but not necessarily in a way that is meaningful to students. One big difference is that schools beyond the T20 tend not to attract superstar profs.

Going to a top school makes it more likely you will be taking a class with the go-to interviews from major media outlets on legal issues, or profs who will be on the shortlist for major political appointments (solicitor general, high judicial appointments, etc.). Slightly less exciting is that you are more likely to take a class with the prof whose name is on the most-used casebook. While it can be neat to take classes with the next solicitor general, you probably aren't learning anything you wouldn't from a more "normal" (but still highly academically qualified) prof. The superstar profs may allow some of the very top students to get superstar clerkships or other unique positions through their connections.

The content will also change as you go down the rankings. At top schools, you may learn more legal theory than black letter law. Profs may choose to omit entire concepts from core 1L classes in favor of a pet theory they have been working on. The further down the ladder you go, the less this tends to happen. By the time you get to schools with serious bar passage issues (typically 4th tier schools), the entire curriculum begins to revolve around the bar with little room for much else. Lower tier schools also tend to be more sticklers about things like taking and requiring attendance (it's supposedly an ABA requirement, but Harvard isn't exactly concerned about their ABA accreditation).

Finally, I do think the is a notable decline in quality at the very bottom (T4, for-profits, and unaccredited) schools. There may be a lot of marginally qualified adjuncts and profs that don't have a super deep understanding of the material. Even those profs who went to prestigious schools teaching in the 4th tier may be considerably less academically qualified than those at higher ranked schools.

nixy wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:08 am

There is a fairly broad consensus that higher-ranked schools teach more about critical thinking/the law as an academic subject, while lower-ranked schools tend to teach more black-letter law. A lot of this is related to bar passage rates (lower-ranked schools tend to try to teach to the test).

I wholeheartedly agree with this.
On a related note, at very, very highly ranked schools it might be possible to get a worse legal education in the sense that you can get a job handed to you in spite of whiffing an interview or not being required to do one at the first place. I've heard this phenomenon happens at UChicago. I'm guessing it probably happens to the 3-4 schools better than it.

nealric wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:40 pm

I think there is some drop off in quality, but not necessarily in a way that is meaningful to students. One big difference is that schools beyond the T20 tend not to attract superstar profs.

Going to a top school makes it more likely you will be taking a class with the go-to interviews from major media outlets on legal issues, or profs who will be on the shortlist for major political appointments (solicitor general, high judicial appointments, etc.). Slightly less exciting is that you are more likely to take a class with the prof whose name is on the most-used casebook. While it can be neat to take classes with the next solicitor general, you probably aren't learning anything you wouldn't from a more "normal" (but still highly academically qualified) prof. The superstar profs may allow some of the very top students to get superstar clerkships or other unique positions through their connections.

The content will also change as you go down the rankings. At top schools, you may learn more legal theory than black letter law. Profs may choose to omit entire concepts from core 1L classes in favor of a pet theory they have been working on. The further down the ladder you go, the less this tends to happen. By the time you get to schools with serious bar passage issues (typically 4th tier schools), the entire curriculum begins to revolve around the bar with little room for much else. Lower tier schools also tend to be more sticklers about things like taking and requiring attendance (it's supposedly an ABA requirement, but Harvard isn't exactly concerned about their ABA accreditation).

Finally, I do think the is a notable decline in quality at the very bottom (T4, for-profits, and unaccredited) schools. There may be a lot of marginally qualified adjuncts and profs that don't have a super deep understanding of the material. Even those profs who went to prestigious schools teaching in the 4th tier may be considerably less academically qualified than those at higher ranked schools.

I agree that the big superstar names are clustered at the top of the rankings, although they're also big superstars for reasons unrelated to teaching. Certainly having connections helps in getting students jobs, not sure that it necessarily correlates with good teaching.

I kinda disagree with "notable" decline at the very bottom. I think the difference in experience is going to be much more about the student body than the faculty; academia's just too competitive. Sure, someone teaching at Cal Western doesn't have as shiny qualifications as your average Harvard prof, but I don't think that means they're marginally qualified or lacking a super deep understanding of the material (also not sure that a "super deep understanding of the material" is necessary for teaching your average 1L class). Pretty sure you can find enough competent lawyers in San Diego (using the Cal Western example) who'd want the academic lifestyle that the faculty are fine. Like sure, I agree they're not Harvard faculty, but I don't think that means they're unqualified or marginally qualified; just that to work at Harvard you have to be uberqualified. (And again, the quality of education provided by superstars can be pretty uneven from the student's point of view.)

nixy wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:26 pm

I kinda disagree with "notable" decline at the very bottom. I think the difference in experience is going to be much more about the student body than the faculty; academia's just too competitive. Sure, someone teaching at Cal Western doesn't have as shiny qualifications as your average Harvard prof, but I don't think that means they're marginally qualified or lacking a super deep understanding of the material (also not sure that a "super deep understanding of the material" is necessary for teaching your average 1L class). Pretty sure you can find enough competent lawyers in San Diego (using the Cal Western example) who'd want the academic lifestyle that the faculty are fine. Like sure, I agree they're not Harvard faculty, but I don't think that means they're unqualified or marginally qualified; just that to work at Harvard you have to be uberqualified. (And again, the quality of education provided by superstars can be pretty uneven from the student's point of view.)

What about for example Miles law school?

Wow, I’d never even heard of Miles. Sure, their faculty (all 7 full time) don’t have Harvard qualifications at all, but the school also appears to use a lot of local judges etc as adjuncts, and it’s clearly an institution with a very specific mission and purpose. I don’t think it’s a school I’d recommend to basically anyone, but not because I think the faculty are incompetent. That said, unaccredited is probably a different category I shouldn’t lump in with accredited schools (I skipped over that in what nealric wrote).

I was surprised to see any non-aba law schools out of CA too. I think TN is the only other example (other than ones pending ABA approval, on suspension,etc) https://www.nsl.law/

As far as "no bad law school professors", maybe....but it is interesting to see how many (relatively recent for many) articles come up for various scandals if you Google "law school professor arrested". Doesn't mean they they taught a bad class though to be fair I suppose.

That’s probably the case for any profession. Substitute “prosecutor” or “defense attorney” or “professor” or “accountant” or “school principal” or whatever, there will be plenty.

nixy wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 4:09 pm

That’s probably the case for any profession. Substitute “prosecutor” or “defense attorney” or “professor” or “accountant” or “school principal” or whatever, there will be plenty.

A bit disturbing how true that is. Doesn't get much media attention (with a few exceptions) beyond the short term local level either for most of it. That includes Judge. Amazingly a lot seem to get their job back (at least until they lose it again).

RandomInternetPerson wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:58 pm

nixy wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 4:09 pm

That’s probably the case for any profession. Substitute “prosecutor” or “defense attorney” or “professor” or “accountant” or “school principal” or whatever, there will be plenty.

A bit disturbing how true that is. Doesn't get much media attention (with a few exceptions) beyond the short term local level either for most of it. That includes Judge. Amazingly a lot seem to get their job back (at least until they lose it again).

Not sure why it’s surprising that people in various professions get arrested. There’s no way to tell from random googling how the rate of arrests for lawyers compares to any other profession.

nixy wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:08 am

RandomInternetPerson wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:58 pm

nixy wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 4:09 pm

That’s probably the case for any profession. Substitute “prosecutor” or “defense attorney” or “professor” or “accountant” or “school principal” or whatever, there will be plenty.

A bit disturbing how true that is. Doesn't get much media attention (with a few exceptions) beyond the short term local level either for most of it. That includes Judge. Amazingly a lot seem to get their job back (at least until they lose it again).

Not sure why it’s surprising that people in various professions get arrested. There’s no way to tell from random googling how the rate of arrests for lawyers compares to any other profession.

Didn't say "surprising" said "distrubing". And it is.

nixy wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:26 pm

I kinda disagree with "notable" decline at the very bottom. I think the difference in experience is going to be much more about the student body than the faculty; academia's just too competitive. Sure, someone teaching at Cal Western doesn't have as shiny qualifications as your average Harvard prof, but I don't think that means they're marginally qualified or lacking a super deep understanding of the material (also not sure that a "super deep understanding of the material" is necessary for teaching your average 1L class). Pretty sure you can find enough competent lawyers in San Diego (using the Cal Western example) who'd want the academic lifestyle that the faculty are fine. Like sure, I agree they're not Harvard faculty, but I don't think that means they're unqualified or marginally qualified; just that to work at Harvard you have to be uberqualified. (And again, the quality of education provided by superstars can be pretty uneven from the student's point of view.)

I'm thinking more along the lines of "People's College of Law" and the like. They aren't getting many serious legal academics teaching there.

RandomInternetPerson wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:06 am

nixy wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:08 am

RandomInternetPerson wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:58 pm

nixy wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 4:09 pm

That’s probably the case for any profession. Substitute “prosecutor” or “defense attorney” or “professor” or “accountant” or “school principal” or whatever, there will be plenty.

A bit disturbing how true that is. Doesn't get much media attention (with a few exceptions) beyond the short term local level either for most of it. That includes Judge. Amazingly a lot seem to get their job back (at least until they lose it again).

Not sure why it’s surprising that people in various professions get arrested. There’s no way to tell from random googling how the rate of arrests for lawyers compares to any other profession.

Didn't say "surprising" said "distrubing". And it is.

Is there a reason why it’s more disturbing for lawyers rather than for any other profession?

Re: people’s college of law, yeah, I sort of retract my comments wrt to unaccredited schools. I actually think the only people who are going to teach at the people’s college of law are going to be pretty dedicated to its mission/goals so might actually be decent teachers, but they’re certainly not going to be providing the Harvard experience (a bunch are UCLA/USC grads, although a bunch are also People’s College grads).

Nixy, again, didn't say that. But it is still disturbing.

And yeah, especially in areas where we pretend to society that we (at least attempted) to weed out the problems, and that those people in those positions are being held to a (theoretically at least) higher standard, even though in practice the truth may be the opposite in some situations..........yeah, it's disturbing. A bit different trusting a plumber to go back to plumbing than a Judge, or Prosecutor. People who society depends on the noble lie of being somehow less fallible. Of course it's more disturbing.

If you found out that surgeons were doing stuff to people in comma's, it would be disturbing too. And yes, if you google that, you will quickly be disturbed.........the world is a fun place full of fun people.

That's about as deep as that rabbit hole goes.

RandomInternetPerson wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:49 pm

If you found out that surgeons were doing stuff to people in comma's, it would be disturbing too. And yes, if you google that, you will quickly be disturbed.........the world is a fun place full of fun people.

If you think that's crazy, the situation in America's semicolons will absolutely rock you

nixy wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 8:37 am

Wow, I’d never even heard of Miles. Sure, their faculty (all 7 full time) don’t have Harvard qualifications at all, but the school also appears to use a lot of local judges etc as adjuncts, and it’s clearly an institution with a very specific mission and purpose. I don’t think it’s a school I’d recommend to basically anyone, but not because I think the faculty are incompetent. That said, unaccredited is probably a different category I shouldn’t lump in with accredited schools (I skipped over that in what nealric wrote).

It looks like many of their few faculty attended Miles itself. It looks to me like an unfortunate case of employing graduates to increase employment numbers but not having any jobs except professor.

The Lsat Airbender wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:10 pm

RandomInternetPerson wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:49 pm

If you found out that surgeons were doing stuff to people in comma's, it would be disturbing too. And yes, if you google that, you will quickly be disturbed.........the world is a fun place full of fun people.

If you think that's crazy, the situation in America's semicolons will absolutely rock you

It took me far longer to get that joke than it should have...........but yeah, I see the typo now.

laanngo wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:12 pm

nixy wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2020 8:37 am

Wow, I’d never even heard of Miles. Sure, their faculty (all 7 full time) don’t have Harvard qualifications at all, but the school also appears to use a lot of local judges etc as adjuncts, and it’s clearly an institution with a very specific mission and purpose. I don’t think it’s a school I’d recommend to basically anyone, but not because I think the faculty are incompetent. That said, unaccredited is probably a different category I shouldn’t lump in with accredited schools (I skipped over that in what nealric wrote).

It looks like many of their few faculty attended Miles itself. It looks to me like an unfortunate case of employing graduates to increase employment numbers but not having any jobs except professor.

Isn't hiring Alumni rather popular and common?

Still can't be worse than this place.......... novus.edu

RandomInternetPerson wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:21 pm

Isn't hiring Alumni rather popular and common?

Still can't be worse than this place.......... novus.edu

Because whoever taught them can attest to their abilities, not as a means of boosting employment numbers.

That's not how hiring faculty works. Law schools don't boost their employment numbers by hiring their grads as faculty (they might do so by creating fellowships for new grads, but not by hiring faculty; and they might hire alumni as faculty, but not to boost employment numbers). Also the permanent faculty at Miles all seem to be practicing lawyers in the Birmingham area; only two are Miles grads, and they both have jobs on top of being faculty. A lot of the other faculty seem to be adjuncts who are local judges and such, so clearly aren't looking for jobs.

Again, I'm not recommending this school to anyone; I'm just saying it doesn't exist only to provide jobs to its grads.

nixy wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:00 pm

That's not how hiring faculty works. Law schools don't boost their employment numbers by hiring their grads as faculty (they might do so by creating fellowships for new grads, but not by hiring faculty; and they might hire alumni as faculty, but not to boost employment numbers). Also the permanent faculty at Miles all seem to be practicing lawyers in the Birmingham area; only two are Miles grads, and they both have jobs on top of being faculty. A lot of the other faculty seem to be adjuncts who are local judges and such, so clearly aren't looking for jobs.

Again, I'm not recommending this school to anyone; I'm just saying it doesn't exist only to provide jobs to its grads.

Wikipedia says they had 13 people graduate last year, so hiring someone as faculty would inflate their employment statistics much better than a larger school. You're probably right that they didn't stoop that low.

I mean look, it's an unaccredited school, it offers only a part-time evening program, its entire purpose is to increase minority representation in the law. It's not measuring itself by the same standard as accredited schools. I'm sure the school wants its grads to get jobs, but they're not competing with the vast majority of schools out there; if it wanted to do that, it would start taking the LSAT and trying to get higher scoring applicants, but that's clearly not what it's about.

(But also... Wikipedia doesn't say they had 13 people graduate last year.)