ATL's Law School Rankings Forum

[AllTheLawz]

Thats only one aspect of the rankings though...

I'd say "which school gets you a market-paying job?" should be a bigger aspect of the rankings, then. I don't care if both schools put 90% of their graduates into jobs if one school has 75% in 160K jobs and federal clerkships and the other has 60% 160K jobs and federal clerkships with another 15% in midlaw or other private work that they took because they couldn't get one of the other two.

I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy? I mean at a school like Duke is there anyone that gets a federal or high-level state clerkship that either doesn't have biglaw, couldn't have gotten it, or won't be getting it post-clerkship? Basically any federal clerkship is tougher to get than a market paying job.


Related question: when a school like Duke has 10% fed clerks + 50% big firm placement, do the two overlap, or are people who are going clerkship -> firm excluded from that 50% number?

Yes. Neither biglaw nor Fed Clerkships are as purely grade driven as TLS believes. In aggregate you need good grades. But on the individual level it isn't rare for someone with less than sterling grades to get a fed clerkship.

[JXander]

ATL's Everything That Is Wrong With The Above the Law Law School Rankings.

[beepboopbeep]

ATL's Everything That Is Wrong With The Above the Law Law School Rankings.

[scruffy556]

Doing a ranking like this, it’s not exactly comparing apples to oranges, but it’s certainly not comparing apples to apples either. It’s more like taking a bunch of different fruits, mashing them into a juice, and then figuring out which juice gives you the longest lasting boner. We’re changing the fundamental nature of a thing into something else and then comparing the effects.

wat

[gnuwheels]

Another ranking puts Michigan near the bottom of the T14 and yet people still try and and justify its place in the T10 and argue against the fact that its not in decline.

[Kronk]

So a Berkeley student wants school funded jobs taken out of the equation and for a stupid high cost of attendance to not be held against a school? I find this shocking.

You know that out of the top ten, Boalt in-state tuition is actually lower than Duke, CLS, NYU, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Penn, and only $167 more per year than UVa? You didn't!? I find this shocking! Insults aside I figure when most people look at rankings they're trying to decide the best school, not the best deal. Big boys can make their own financial decisions knowing how good each school is and then deciding how much that is worth to them.

I don't care where Cal is ranked, I didn't base my original decision on ranking and I don't believe any 0L should. But I do think a ranking should ideally form a good metric for measuring the worth of the degree. That is, how likely you are to get a job, and the desirability of that job.

[BigZuck]

So a Berkeley student wants school funded jobs taken out of the equation and for a stupid high cost of attendance to not be held against a school? I find this shocking.

You know that out of the top ten, Boalt in-state tuition is actually lower than Duke, CLS, NYU, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Penn, and only $167 more per year than UVa? You didn't!? I find this shocking! Insults aside I figure when most people look at rankings they're trying to decide the best school, not the best deal. Big boys can make their own financial decisions knowing how good each school is and then deciding how much that is worth to them.

I don't care where Cal is ranked, I didn't base my original decision on ranking and I don't believe any 0L should. But I do think a ranking should ideally form a good metric for measuring the worth of the degree. That is, how likely you are to get a job, and the desirability of that job.

I just wish MVP(B) bros would pull up their big boy pants and cover up their hurt little butts. They have such huge chips on their shoulders and get so defensive when discussing schools at their ranking and then the DCNG schools (except for maybe the Penn bros, they seem pretty chill). Anyway, maybe that's not you, (although you did mention the UVA thing).

So glad I'm not smart enough to go to an MVP(B) school, I won't ever have to be engaged in this white knightery.

[The Brainalist]

So a Berkeley student wants school funded jobs taken out of the equation and for a stupid high cost of attendance to not be held against a school? I find this shocking.

You know that out of the top ten, Boalt in-state tuition is actually lower than Duke, CLS, NYU, Chicago, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and Penn, and only $167 more per year than UVa? You didn't!? I find this shocking! Insults aside I figure when most people look at rankings they're trying to decide the best school, not the best deal. Big boys can make their own financial decisions knowing how good each school is and then deciding how much that is worth to them.

I don't care where Cal is ranked, I didn't base my original decision on ranking and I don't believe any 0L should. But I do think a ranking should ideally form a good metric for measuring the worth of the degree. That is, how likely you are to get a job, and the desirability of that job.

FYI, your entire first paragraph sounds like someone who is losing an argument and can't do it graciously.

And LOL at Berkeley's in-state tuition being something other than a slap-in-the-face to California residents.

(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)

[Kronk]

FYI, your entire first paragraph sounds like someone who is losing an argument and can't do it graciously.

And LOL at Berkeley's in-state tuition being something other than a slap-in-the-face to California residents.

(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)

Go to the lounge sometime. I have a feeling we could use someone like you in the politics thread.

If the in-state tuition here is a slap-in-the-face to CA residents, which I agree that it is, that doesn't change the fact that in-state tuition at UVa and Michigan are slaps in the faces to them as well. It's just the way things are these days, was my point, from private schools to public, and the "Berkeley has high tuition!" thing is pretty overblown when you consider the difference is only $167 over a full year. And idk about graciousness, I just figure if someone is being cunty to me, I'm allowed to madlib their cunty insult to be equally twatlike to them. Seems fair.

[Kronk]

So glad I'm not smart enough to go to an MVP(B) school, I won't ever have to be engaged in this white knightery.

I mean, I was white knighting CLS. So you'll NEVER BE SAFE, Zuck, NEVER.

[The Brainalist]

FYI, your entire first paragraph sounds like someone who is losing an argument and can't do it graciously.

And LOL at Berkeley's in-state tuition being something other than a slap-in-the-face to California residents.

(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)

Go to the lounge sometime. I have a feeling we could use someone like you in the politics thread.

If the in-state tuition here is a slap-in-the-face to CA residents, which I agree that it is, that doesn't change the fact that in-state tuition at UVa and Michigan are slaps in the faces to them as well. It's just the way things are these days, was my point, from private schools to public, and the "Berkeley has high tuition!" thing is pretty overblown when you consider the difference is only $167 over a full year. And idk about graciousness, I just figure if someone is being cunty to me, I'm allowed to madlib their cunty insult to be equally twatlike to them. Seems fair.

Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.

[Kronk]

Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.

Welcome to TLS.

[los blancos]

Thats only one aspect of the rankings though...

I'd say "which school gets you a market-paying job?" should be a bigger aspect of the rankings, then. I don't care if both schools put 90% of their graduates into jobs if one school has 75% in 160K jobs and federal clerkships and the other has 60% 160K jobs and federal clerkships with another 15% in midlaw or other private work that they took because they couldn't get one of the other two.

I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy? I mean at a school like Duke is there anyone that gets a federal or high-level state clerkship that either doesn't have biglaw, couldn't have gotten it, or won't be getting it post-clerkship? Basically any federal clerkship is tougher to get than a market paying job.


Related question: when a school like Duke has 10% fed clerks + 50% big firm placement, do the two overlap, or are people who are going clerkship -> firm excluded from that 50% number?

Big law percentage is based on NALP forms or NLJ250 reports, so it only counts the people actually starting as associates that year. So there shouldn't be any overlap.

Thanks, brother.

[The Brainalist]

Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.

Welcome to TLS.

Race to the bottom.

[Kronk]

Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.

Welcome to TLS.

Race to the bottom.

I think you're winning, breh! "Don't lower yourself to their level" followed up by:

(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)

Can we end this shit now? Zuck has thick skin. He was chill with a little sarcasm going back and forth.

[los blancos]

Thats only one aspect of the rankings though...

I'd say "which school gets you a market-paying job?" should be a bigger aspect of the rankings, then. I don't care if both schools put 90% of their graduates into jobs if one school has 75% in 160K jobs and federal clerkships and the other has 60% 160K jobs and federal clerkships with another 15% in midlaw or other private work that they took because they couldn't get one of the other two.

I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy? I mean at a school like Duke is there anyone that gets a federal or high-level state clerkship that either doesn't have biglaw, couldn't have gotten it, or won't be getting it post-clerkship? Basically any federal clerkship is tougher to get than a market paying job.


Related question: when a school like Duke has 10% fed clerks + 50% big firm placement, do the two overlap, or are people who are going clerkship -> firm excluded from that 50% number?

Yes. Neither biglaw nor Fed Clerkships are as purely grade driven as TLS believes. In aggregate you need good grades. But on the individual level it isn't rare for someone with less than sterling grades to get a fed clerkship.

Right, but on average you still need significantly better grades to get a fed clerkship (even with a magistrate) than just "biglaw" - you're still competitive for biglaw in varying degrees at the median at most T14s. My impression is you've got a ≤ 15% shot at a federal clerkship, even in rural states.

I'm speculating that 90+% of those who get fed clerkships are in one of these three categories
-has biglaw and deferred
-doesn't want biglaw and could have had it if s/he wanted it
-will get biglaw post-clerkship

Does that sound right or am I totally off-base?

[The Brainalist]

Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.

Welcome to TLS.

Race to the bottom.

I think you're winning, breh! "Don't lower yourself to their level" followed up by:

(BTW. Holy freakin' cow at 20,000+ posts. Are you trying to beat Anonymous for top poster? DO IT. That guy is always bragging about his job offers.)

Can we end this shit now? Zuck has thick skin. He was chill with a little sarcasm going back and forth.

Nothing wrong with a lot of posts. I'm not sure why you would take it that way. If you do, that's on you, not me.

[Sheffield]

I especially like that there is a new prominent player in the LS rankings game.

Given time it could be an apples-to-apples comparison of the AFC when it rivaled the NFL (pick your sport, at some point they all probably had a second league to deal with). Actually, I do not know why this did not occur earlier.

Timing certainly seems right. USNWR has turned into a boring sequel of the “Groundhog Day” movie. Time to shake it up!

[BigZuck]

Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.

Welcome to TLS.

Race to the bottom.

I would appreciate it if you treated the MVP(B) butt hurt with the high level of gravitas it deserves my bro.

[The Brainalist]

Big Z wasn't trying to make a legitimate argument. Rather, Big Z was bringing the level of discourse down, and you let him/her do it. You have legit points, but you always sound like you are losing when you bring it down to that level.

Welcome to TLS.

Race to the bottom.

I would appreciate it if you treated the MVP(B) butt hurt with the high level of gravitas it deserves my bro.

It was masterful, in its way.

[Blessedassurance]

I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy?

no. what do you think [most of the] clerks go on to do?

in fact, the entire infatuation with clerkships and litigation (outside ip) is baffling.

[Kronk]

I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy?

no. what do you think the clerks go on to do?

Get bonuses from the big law jobs they already had or get offered better big law positions that they would have previously. Definitely harder to get and more prestigious. Whether or not they are "better" is probably personal, but they're certainly seen that way.

[Blessedassurance]

I agree with you on this, but aren't federal clerkships > biglawl on the hierarchy?

no. what do you think the clerks go on to do?

Get bonuses from the big law jobs they already had or get offered better big law positions that they would have previously. Definitely harder to get and more prestigious. Whether or not they are "better" is probably personal, but they're certainly seen that way.

the bonuses are not really relevant. besides the fact that not all firms offer the bonus, even when they do, most come out worse off financially. if it leads to better biglaw, then biglaw > clerkship.

it's also entirely useless for transaction. it's just something law students like to salivate over due to their inherent need to unnecessarily strive.

[Kronk]

it's also entirely useless for transaction. it's just something law students like to salivate over due to their inherent need to unnecessarily strive.

Pretty much agree with this. My point is just that it is considered more prestigious. Certainly a striver's dream.

[The Brainalist]

no. what do you think the clerks go on to do?

Get bonuses from the big law jobs they already had or get offered better big law positions that they would have previously. Definitely harder to get and more prestigious. Whether or not they are "better" is probably personal, but they're certainly seen that way.

the bonuses are not really relevant. besides the fact that not all firms offer the bonus, even when they do, most come out worse off financially. if it leads to better biglaw, then biglaw > clerkship.

it's also entirely useless for transaction. it's just something law students like to salivate over due to their inherent need to unnecessarily strive.

I tend to agree. Clerking isn't a career, it's a resume' line. Clerks do the same stuff other people do, but with longer resumes, basically.

It isn't always an indicator of better job prospects. You'd be surprised the number of people who do clerkships because they get no-offered or bombed out of 2L interviews. Although it often gives another chance at getting those entry-level positions, I'm also not sure how much it helps beyond that because the top firms are still looking at grades and journal work. If you didn't meet the minimum standards before, a clerkship doesn't always fix it. Often it's correlated with acheivement, but doesn't necessarily cause it.

It may matter a lot more as experience for jobs that expect you to hit the ground running, though, like government or boutique firms. Those don't seem to be highly valued by ATL, however.