Real difference between T2 75-10 and T3? Forum

[JOThompson]

So much bad gouge in several of these posts, stuff that could lead people very astray. Schools like Lewis and Clark (#61) or UOregon (#77) vastly outperform Willamette (local T3). You can verify this by simply looking up the rosters of most respectable small and medium firms throughout the state. Schools outside the Top 14/20 enjoy mainly regional reputations, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between T2 and T3s within a particular region.

[ggocat]

And the ranking of your school suggests to potential employers and clients what caliber of person they are dealing with.

Using this logic, a person that opts to take a full ride to a Tier 2 or 3 school instead of going to the T30 they've been accepted to at sticker has reduced their own quality and caliber as a person? Is that what you're saying? Really?

I'm not the OP, but I will jump in and generally agree with the quoted portion of the OP's comment. (I say "generally" because of course there are exceptions to a general rule like this).

Some of the debate in this thread may be due to the ambiguity of what is meant by "higher caliber person." I use the term strictly in the sense of what makes a candidate a better employee.

Employers use rankings because they assume that a higher ranking generally attracts higher caliber applicants, and higher caliber applicants are likely to be better employees. William D. Henderson & Andrew P. Morriss, Student Quality as Measured by LSAT Scores: Migration Patterns in the U.S. News Rankings Era, 81 IND. L.J. 163, 199 (2006). Employers generally conclude that “the quality of educational inputs (entering credentials) is functionally the same as educational outputs (law school graduates).” Id. Thus, “when law firms rely upon the U.S. News rankings to set their hiring practices, they . . . appear to operate on a model of ‘good quality in, good quality out.’” Id.

This belief is not limited to law firm hiring partners. See Adam Liptak, On the Bench and Off, the Eminently Quotable Justice Scalia, N.Y. TIMES, May 11, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=1 (noting Justice Scalia’s statement at American University’s Washington College of Law: “[Higher ranking law schools] admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?”).

EDIT: And another reason I said "generally" is because of situations like the one you describe, TonyDigital. Noting a scholarship on a resume could signal to potential employers that you had higher entering credentials. More important, of course, would be proving you are a higher caliber applicant by performing well on law school exams. (But I don't really want to get into a debate here about whether doing well on law school exams means you would be a higher caliber applicant, so let's just assume for the sake of argument that employers value high grades. lol).

[JOThompson]

And the ranking of your school suggests to potential employers and clients what caliber of person they are dealing with.

Using this logic, a person that opts to take a full ride to a Tier 2 or 3 school instead of going to the T30 they've been accepted to at sticker has reduced their own quality and caliber as a person? Is that what you're saying? Really?

I'm not the OP, but I will jump in and generally agree with the quoted portion of the OP's comment. (I say "generally" because of course there are exceptions to a general rule like this).

Some of the debate in this thread may be due to the ambiguity of what is meant by "higher caliber person." I use the term strictly in the sense of what makes a candidate a better employee.

Employers use rankings because they assume that a higher ranking generally attracts higher caliber applicants, and higher caliber applicants are likely to be better employees. William D. Henderson & Andrew P. Morriss, Student Quality as Measured by LSAT Scores: Migration Patterns in the U.S. News Rankings Era, 81 IND. L.J. 163, 199 (2006). Employers generally conclude that “the quality of educational inputs (entering credentials) is functionally the same as educational outputs (law school graduates).” Id. Thus, “when law firms rely upon the U.S. News rankings to set their hiring practices, they . . . appear to operate on a model of ‘good quality in, good quality out.’” Id.

This belief is not limited to law firm hiring partners. See Adam Liptak, On the Bench and Off, the Eminently Quotable Justice Scalia, N.Y. TIMES, May 11, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=1 (noting Justice Scalia’s statement at American University’s Washington College of Law: “[Higher ranking law schools] admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?”).

+1

Employers may not know that you received a full ride either (appropriate to list the scholarship name but not the amount), so they may assume that said school was one of the best you got into.

[Shot007]

None.

The rankings are:

T3>T6>T10>T14>T30>Regional Manager for McDonalds>Most other ABA approved Law Schools>Katherine Gibbs Typing Classes>Non-Hamburger College Graduate employee of McDonald's>NYC Area Law schools that aren't T14 or Fordham

In sum.. Outside of the T30... rankings mean nothing. People will argue this point, but those people don't know what they are talking about.

It's comments like this that give this board a bad reputation.

Agreed. I think there's top-20, then #20-50, then everything below. I believe there's something that sets Texas and USC apart from UNC and W & L, but only to the extent that employment prospects are better, and those prospects are better as a result of self-fulfilling prophesy.

At each level, one can argue about 10-15 schools that belong a level above. Does Arizona really provide a lower quality education than William & Mary? Is Suffolk really "below" San Francisco or Rutgers? Nope. Rankings are stupid, and people accept them as gospel when they are anything but.

None.

The rankings are:

T3>T6>T10>T14>T30>Regional Manager for McDonalds>Most other ABA approved Law Schools>Katherine Gibbs Typing Classes>Non-Hamburger College Graduate employee of McDonald's>NYC Area Law schools that aren't T14 or Fordham

In sum.. Outside of the T30... rankings mean nothing. People will argue this point, but those people don't know what they are talking about.

I'd take it potentially a step further. Outside of the T14, ranking means very little. There may be more prestige in a T30 school than a T2, but outside of the top, all law schools are regional. Mostly, T30 schools just have a bigger region than a T2 school. Rankings only begin to matter again when you get to Cooley, Florida Coastal, People's College of Law, etc.

I would argue that practically all schools are "regional", except for Harvard and Yale. Even Stanford and Berkeley are ostensibly regional schools, but not because firms don't want their graduates. Like Stanford and Berkeley, UCLA and USC are also "decidedly regional" because of self-selection by students, just as Vanderbilt, Tulane and Howard are decidedly less regional due to self-selection by students.

In a nutshell, the dynamics of recruiting are often influenced by the students who attend certain schools, not because of the calibers of the schools.

I agree with the second half, however its a stretch to say only Harvard and Yale are truly national...It seems that you contradicted yourself by mentioning schools like Vanderbilt and Howard

[Grizz]

Except I think he went to a TTT. I apologize if I'm wrong. But I think I've seen him post that.

You're right.

[oberlin08]

Theres a noticeable difference in the academic attrition rates (fail-outs) and Transfer-out rates in schools 77-100 and T3. Check it out

[OneKnight]

This belief is not limited to law firm hiring partners. See Adam Liptak, On the Bench and Off, the Eminently Quotable Justice Scalia, N.Y. TIMES, May 11, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=1 (noting Justice Scalia’s statement at American University’s Washington College of Law: “[Higher ranking law schools] admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?”)..

My favorite line in the article was "For God's Sake, he went to Ohio State!"

[quickquestionthanks]

Well, for starters, your comment suggests, nay states, that people do not distinguish between a school like, say Seton Hall, ranked 78 and a school like UC Davis, ranked 35. The selectivity and quality of student is clearly quite different as is the portability of their degrees. Same applies to a wide range of comparisons between schools outside the top 30, with which I will not bore you.

The point is, there is life beyond your T30, or T14, or T3 world. And in that world, the quality of your education matters. And the ranking of your school suggests to potential employers and clients what caliber of person they are dealing with.

Using this logic, a person that opts to take a full ride to a Tier 2 or 3 school instead of going to the T30 they've been accepted to at sticker has reduced their own quality and caliber as a person? Is that what you're saying? Really?

First, I want to point out that I'm not the OP of this thread.

Second, I said that your school ranking 'suggests' your caliber, not that it determines or dictates it. You don't reduce your own actual quality and caliber as a person, you simply diminish your perception in others' eyes. Big difference.

And that's absolutely the reason that T2 and T3 schools try to lure 'T30 caliber' students with money. It's a short term benefit for a long term sacrifice. They're paying you to take their title over one with a better reputation, in hopes that, over the long run, they will increase their own reputation by producing 'better' graduates.

[kswiss]

So much bad gouge in several of these posts, stuff that could lead people very astray. Schools like Lewis and Clark (#61) or UOregon (#77) vastly outperform Willamette (local T3). You can verify this by simply looking up the rosters of most respectable small and medium firms throughout the state. Schools outside the Top 14/20 enjoy mainly regional reputations, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between T2 and T3s within a particular region.

TITCR, indeed.

Are you honestly implying that a Golden Gate University degree is worth the same as a UC Davis degree? A Pepperdine degree worth the same as La Verne?

I love it when peope say "rankings don't matter" but then back it up with rankings. Its silly. If you want a job in Portland, a UO degree is worth a lot more than a Willamette degree. If you want to work in norcal Davis > GGU or McGeorge by a long shot.

So the number assigned might not matter, but that number still usually correlates to the prestige within a region.

That said, it would be stupid for someone who wanted to practice in Portland to go to Utah or Hastings just because its ranked higher than L&C or UO. It would be worth it, though, to go to UW, as the employment prospects are better.

I know its tempting to simplify an ambiguous concept like ROI for law schools, but it does a disservice IMO because there really are distinctions between schools outside of a T30, so taking a full ride to a TTT isn't necessarily a good choice over the strongest regional school. If someone took that away from this thread just because a "practicing lawyer" said it, it would be an unfortunate situation.

I'm a "practicing live sound technician" right now, but this does not give me license to comment on the sound technician employment market for all of america, or even for my city for that matter.

[TonyDigital]

Well, for starters, your comment suggests, nay states, that people do not distinguish between a school like, say Seton Hall, ranked 78 and a school like UC Davis, ranked 35. The selectivity and quality of student is clearly quite different as is the portability of their degrees. Same applies to a wide range of comparisons between schools outside the top 30, with which I will not bore you.

The point is, there is life beyond your T30, or T14, or T3 world. And in that world, the quality of your education matters. And the ranking of your school suggests to potential employers and clients what caliber of person they are dealing with.

Using this logic, a person that opts to take a full ride to a Tier 2 or 3 school instead of going to the T30 they've been accepted to at sticker has reduced their own quality and caliber as a person? Is that what you're saying? Really?

First, I want to point out that I'm not the OP of this thread.

Second, I said that your school ranking 'suggests' your caliber, not that it determines or dictates it. You don't reduce your own actual quality and caliber as a person, you simply diminish your perception in others' eyes. Big difference.

And that's absolutely the reason that T2 and T3 schools try to lure 'T30 caliber' students with money. It's a short term benefit for a long term sacrifice. They're paying you to take their title over one with a better reputation, in hopes that, over the long run, they will increase their own reputation by producing 'better' graduates.

Ok...I maybe just misunderstood your first post.

[reasonable_man]

1) I post a few times a week. I think I'm entitled to take a few minutes out of the day to screw around on the internet without having to justify that. I believe Ken (founder of this site), is also a practicing lawyer. Does that make him a loser too?
2) I am a TTT grad.
3) I work at a mid-sized firm in NYC and have done quite well for myself.
4) I'm sorry that people on this site actually believe that there is a big difference between a school ranked 40 and a school ranked 59 or 78, but there just isn't. Not in the real world anyway.
5) You don't know who I am, but several people, like Rayiner, OperaSoprano, Beta Steve, Paratactical all know my actual identity and I invite you to ask them about whether I speak from experience/know what I'm talking about.

[JOThompson]

4) I'm sorry that people on this site actually believe that there is a big difference between a school ranked 40 and a school ranked 59 or 78, but there just isn't. Not in the real world anyway.

I'll agree that rankings are often overemphasized, but your initial statement seems a lot stronger than the above post. The real gulf between a lower T1 and an upper T2 school may not be significant, but I'm not convinced that a school ranked in the 60s is comparable to a T3/T4.

The rankings are:

T3>T6>T10>T14>T30>Regional Manager for McDonalds>Most other ABA approved Law Schools>Katherine Gibbs Typing Classes>Non-Hamburger College Graduate employee of McDonald's>NYC Area Law schools that aren't T14 or Fordham

In sum.. Outside of the T30... rankings mean nothing. People will argue this point, but those people don't know what they are talking about.

[qualster]

So much bad gouge in several of these posts, stuff that could lead people very astray. Schools like Lewis and Clark (#61) or UOregon (#77) vastly outperform Willamette (local T3). You can verify this by simply looking up the rosters of most respectable small and medium firms throughout the state. Schools outside the Top 14/20 enjoy mainly regional reputations, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between T2 and T3s within a particular region.

TITCR, indeed.

Are you honestly implying that a Golden Gate University degree is worth the same as a UC Davis degree? A Pepperdine degree worth the same as La Verne?

I love it when peope say "rankings don't matter" but then back it up with rankings. Its silly. If you want a job in Portland, a UO degree is worth a lot more than a Willamette degree. If you want to work in norcal Davis > GGU or McGeorge by a long shot.

So the number assigned might not matter, but that number still usually correlates to the prestige within a region.

That said, it would be stupid for someone who wanted to practice in Portland to go to Utah or Hastings just because its ranked higher than L&C or UO. It would be worth it, though, to go to UW, as the employment prospects are better.

I know its tempting to simplify an ambiguous concept like ROI for law schools, but it does a disservice IMO because there really are distinctions between schools outside of a T30, so taking a full ride to a TTT isn't necessarily a good choice over the strongest regional school. If someone took that away from this thread just because a "practicing lawyer" said it, it would be an unfortunate situation.

I'm a "practicing live sound technician" right now, but this does not give me license to comment on the sound technician employment market for all of america, or even for my city for that matter.

Exactly. The U of Florida is better than Nova Southeastern. It's not even close, and the job prospects are going to be far better for the U of F grad.

[erniesto]

None.

The rankings are:

T3>T6>T10>T14>T30>Regional Manager for McDonalds>Most other ABA approved Law Schools>Katherine Gibbs Typing Classes>Non-Hamburger College Graduate employee of McDonald's>NYC Area Law schools that aren't T14 or Fordham

In sum.. Outside of the T30... rankings mean nothing. People will argue this point, but those people don't know what they are talking about.

Thumbs up for you, as a person, being more discussed than the actual topic.

I think the takeaway from this quote is: Don't expect models and bottles. If you really want the 60 hour career path (Which is actually pretty normal for management) and are set (foolishly?) on being a lawyer go where you want to live for the cheapest tuition. Also took away that reasonable_man thinks the NYC legal market is super saturated.

BTW in this economy you're not getting regional manager at McDonalds unless you're an Ivy grad. Sorry, these guys enjoy cruising the trashed out rivers of America in their shitty used motor boats too much to leave this cushy job.

[Oblomov]

Being able to feel superior to some of the other JDs in the unemployment line.

[A'nold]

LOL. Last year during my cycle, reasonable man was praised for being a beacon of reality. This year's class seems helplessly naive. I really think there is some middle ground, but reasonable man is not some random ignorant a-hole, he is a pretty knowledgeable and experienced a-hole.

[OperaSoprano]

LOL. Last year during my cycle, reasonable man was praised for being a beacon of reality. This year's class seems helplessly naive. I really think there is some middle ground, but reasonable man is not some random ignorant a-hole, he is a pretty knowledgeable and experienced a-hole.

Haha, we <3 reasonable man. He is incredibly thoughtful, and he knows whereof he speaks.

[quickquestionthanks]

LOL. Last year during my cycle, reasonable man was praised for being a beacon of reality. This year's class seems helplessly naive. I really think there is some middle ground, but reasonable man is not some random ignorant a-hole, he is a pretty knowledgeable and experienced a-hole.

Haha, we <3 reasonable man. He is incredibly thoughtful, and he knows whereof he speaks.

I don't know the guy personally, but his name is reasonable man. I find it a little unreasonable to say things like "outside of the T30...rankings mean nothing."

Or that being a regional manager of McDonald's is somehow a better career move than going to a school outside the T30. I realize that last part was a floundered attempt at humor, but a reasonable person would realize that one's ability to retain clients is vastly more important than school ranking once you are practicing.

So I felt the need to point out that it's thoughtless sweeping generalizations like those that ruin the atmosphere for others (who may have partied too much in college but will nonetheless make excellent attorneys) on this board. And he can go shove it for telling me to kiss his ass.

[BigA]

I don't know the guy personally, but his name is reasonable man. I find it a little unreasonable to say things like "outside of the T30...rankings mean nothing."

I thought his avatar was meant to be tongue in cheek... apparently not

[reasonable_man]

Ok. You're right.. Anyway.. I'm going to go take the 9th of 40 or so deposition days on a 15 million dollar construction defect case in a nice office in midtown with 9 other lawyers (that attended schools ranked as high as the T14, the T50, T100 and TTTT all sitting at the same table and all earning roughly the same money)..

Again, this year's class is right.. the grads from 43 are way better off than 71.. I'll be sure to stop off in one of the partners offices from the T20 at my office and tell them that i'm inferior to them because TLS says so... bla bla bla..

Again, one day you will all see... sadly, its gonna cost you a lot of time and money to understand it..

[beach_terror]

Reasonable_Man:

Seems that your firm has a pretty wide distribution of grads, do you know if that correlates with their class rank at all? That might be too personal for you to know, but I'm curious. For instance, were the t-14 grads lower in their class (median or lower) and the TTT higher (top 25%ish)? Could be offbase with that prediction, but if you could bitchslap my ignorance, I'd be interested to hear.

I'm deciding between a few regional Philly schools, and I'm try to figure in how my rank will weigh in differently at Temple/Nova/Rutgers as opposed to somewhere like Syracuse (which is cheapest for me). Since a school like Temple places so well in Philly, I figure my rank could be slightly lower than coming from Syracuse (not exactly a Philly feeder to begin with), giving me more wiggle room when it comes down to the job search, while roughly facing the same quality of student at either school.

[Borhas]

1) I post a few times a week. I think I'm entitled to take a few minutes out of the day to screw around on the internet without having to justify that. I believe Ken (founder of this site), is also a practicing lawyer. Does that make him a loser too?
2) I am a TTT grad.
3) I work at a mid-sized firm in NYC and have done quite well for myself.
4) I'm sorry that people on this site actually believe that there is a big difference between a school ranked 40 and a school ranked 59 or 78, but there just isn't. Not in the real world anyway.
5) You don't know who I am, but several people, like Rayiner, OperaSoprano, Beta Steve, Paratactical all know my actual identity and I invite you to ask them about whether I speak from experience/know what I'm talking about.

I think these guys are trying to say that there isn't a big difference between 28 and 35. But they go about showing that parity by claiming some great disparity between 35 and 70.

the first claim seems reasonable enough, the second sounds kind of douchy and naive

[JOThompson]

1) I post a few times a week. I think I'm entitled to take a few minutes out of the day to screw around on the internet without having to justify that. I believe Ken (founder of this site), is also a practicing lawyer. Does that make him a loser too?
2) I am a TTT grad.
3) I work at a mid-sized firm in NYC and have done quite well for myself.
4) I'm sorry that people on this site actually believe that there is a big difference between a school ranked 40 and a school ranked 59 or 78, but there just isn't. Not in the real world anyway.
5) You don't know who I am, but several people, like Rayiner, OperaSoprano, Beta Steve, Paratactical all know my actual identity and I invite you to ask them about whether I speak from experience/know what I'm talking about.

I think these guys are trying to say that there isn't a big difference between 28 and 35. But they go about showing that parity by claiming some great disparity between 35 and 70.

the first claim seems reasonable enough, the second is sounds kind of douchy and naive

There is a big measurable job placement disparity between 35 (or 70) and most T3s/T4s. That's my only point and I'm not sure how it qualifies me as being naive. That's not to say that grads of lower ranked schools are somehow inferior as attorneys or individuals though. Apparently Reasonable Man has done well for himself, but I suspect that his degree of success is not typical.

[GeePee]

ITT: Lower T1 and T2 students attempt to justify their investment

[erniesto]

To uncredit reasonable_man's assertion:

In the legendary and now mythical Law-bubble year of 2005, 30s ranked UC Davis/Hastings (these are the same schools right???!) placed almost 3 times as many graduates (percentage wise) in the NLJ250 as the then third tier ranked University of San Francisco.

Let me break down the numbers for you:

UC Davis/Hastings ~16% in NLJ250
USF ~6% in NLJ250

That's a whole 10% difference. Wow! But wait, lets mess with these numbers a bit more.

UC Davistings (see what I did there?) ~84% didn't place in the NLJ250
USF ~94% didn't place in the NLJ 250

So in summary, as you can see, the difference in placement is extraordinary between ranks 30 and the TTT, especially in a really good legal market.

--ImageRemoved--