Top Law Schools

i ask b/c it seems like if the UG is good, then law school is good. But on the other hand, just b/c a law school is good doesn't necessarily translate into the UG being good, such as BU, Fordham, UMinnesota, UTexas.

so how much do you think the UG affects the law school ranking?

.

timertimer61 wrote:i ask b/c it seems like if the UG is good, then law school is good. But on the other hand, just b/c a law school is good doesn't necessarily translate into the UG being good, such as BU, Fordham, UMinnesota, UTexas.

so how much do you think the UG affects the law school ranking?

it's not imagined. it probably matters. but you should have also thrown in NYU into your little list there. lemme guess, you're in at NYU?

All of the schools you listed have good undergraduate programs...Texas? One of the best schools in the country for certain fields.

.

"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

legalease9 wrote:"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

I actually think the opposite is true. Think of Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown... they're great schools, but they don't have comprehensive graduate programs like other universities. (Note: I understand that they do have some graduate programs, like Tuck at Dartmouth, but they're just not as comprehensive as other schools.)

Also, look at WUSTL Law's rise in the rankings... the undergraduate rise came much before the Law School's rise.

legalease9 wrote:"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

+180.

Look at NYU.

On the flip side, this is exactly why some incredible undergrads don't get the layman credit they deserve. Undergrads that focus on undergrad students can provide a much better UG experience (access to professors, research opportunities, UG-centric administration) but don't rank as highly because they don't have cash cow law-schools, med-schools, or grad-schools attached to them. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesly, Vassar, Kenyan, Brown, Dartmouth, Haverford, Grinnell...

Daytukrjabs wrote:it matters as much as the knowledge you have regarding this imagined issue.

lol

Pretty sure this guy got into NYU.

theantiscalia wrote:

legalease9 wrote:"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

I actually think the opposite is true. Think of Princeton, Dartmouth, and Brown... they're great schools, but they don't have comprehensive graduate programs like other universities. (Note: I understand that they do have some graduate programs, like Tuck at Dartmouth, but they're just not as comprehensive as other schools.)

Also, look at WUSTL Law's rise in the rankings... the undergraduate rise came much before the Law School's rise.

Princeton is an interesting case, although Princeton's lack of professional schools doesn't mean it doesn't have a strong graduate program in other areas. My point was more that the research element of University's tends to be what defines its elite status, and having a strong research element is largely tied up with the graduate schools in most cases. Thus for example, Harvard is known for its elite graduate programs far more than its undergraduate program. But people still want to go to harvard undergrad because of the prestige it has gained from having those great graduate programs. That being said I could see one graduate program increase the undergraduate quality which in turn leads to improving another graduate program. So there could be a cyclical effect. But it usually starts with the graduate programs.

342848386278 wrote:

legalease9 wrote:"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

+180.

Look at NYU.

On the flip side, this is exactly why some incredible undergrads don't get the layman credit they deserve. Undergrads that focus on undergrad students can provide a much better UG experience (access to professors, research opportunities, UG-centric administration) but don't rank as highly because they don't have cash cow law-schools, med-schools, or grad-schools attached to them. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesly, Vassar, Kenyan, Brown, Dartmouth, Haverford, Grinnell...

Definitely. There are all sorts of great undergrads, but the top students don't want to go to them because they don't have that graduate power (and money) that makes it "elite."

.

342848386278 wrote:

legalease9 wrote:"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

+180.

Look at NYU.

On the flip side, this is exactly why some incredible undergrads don't get the layman credit they deserve. Undergrads that focus on undergrad students can provide a much better UG experience (access to professors, research opportunities, UG-centric administration) but don't rank as highly because they don't have cash cow law-schools, med-schools, or grad-schools attached to them. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesly, Vassar, Kenyan, Brown, Dartmouth, Haverford, Grinnell...

Well, most of those are liberal arts colleges, which I think do get a lot of respect. There just aren't a lot of Williams graduates compared to Harvard graduates (let alone big publics like Berkeley or Wisconsin), so they get sort of lost in the shuffle.

Brown and Dartmouth get just as much lay credit as Cornell, which is also an Ivy and has all of the graduate programs that Brown and Dartmouth lack.

BenJ wrote:

342848386278 wrote:

legalease9 wrote:"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

+180.

Look at NYU.

On the flip side, this is exactly why some incredible undergrads don't get the layman credit they deserve. Undergrads that focus on undergrad students can provide a much better UG experience (access to professors, research opportunities, UG-centric administration) but don't rank as highly because they don't have cash cow law-schools, med-schools, or grad-schools attached to them. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesly, Vassar, Kenyan, Brown, Dartmouth, Haverford, Grinnell...

Well, most of those are liberal arts colleges, which I think do get a lot of respect. There just aren't a lot of Williams graduates compared to Harvard graduates (let alone big publics like Berkeley or Wisconsin), so they get sort of lost in the shuffle.

Brown and Dartmouth get just as much lay credit as Cornell, which is also an Ivy and has all of the graduate programs that Brown and Dartmouth lack.

Depends on where you are. As a native Oklahoman, I can say from experience that nobody has heard of Brown or Dartmouth, though some know of Cornell.

Law schools ranked higher than affiliated university: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... nki-1.html

and

Law schools ranked lower than affiliated universityhttp://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... s-ran.html

342848386278 wrote:

BenJ wrote:

342848386278 wrote:

legalease9 wrote:"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

+180.

Look at NYU.

On the flip side, this is exactly why some incredible undergrads don't get the layman credit they deserve. Undergrads that focus on undergrad students can provide a much better UG experience (access to professors, research opportunities, UG-centric administration) but don't rank as highly because they don't have cash cow law-schools, med-schools, or grad-schools attached to them. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesly, Vassar, Kenyan, Brown, Dartmouth, Haverford, Grinnell...

Well, most of those are liberal arts colleges, which I think do get a lot of respect. There just aren't a lot of Williams graduates compared to Harvard graduates (let alone big publics like Berkeley or Wisconsin), so they get sort of lost in the shuffle.

Brown and Dartmouth get just as much lay credit as Cornell, which is also an Ivy and has all of the graduate programs that Brown and Dartmouth lack.

Depends on where you are. As a native Oklahoman, I can say from experience that nobody has heard of Brown or Dartmouth, though some know of Cornell.

Well, Cornell UG is also more than twice the size of Brown UG and more than three times the size of Dartmouth UG, which plays into my other point that size of the school matters more than graduate programs. But I think it's pretty unlikely that Cornell is substantially better known than Brown or Dartmouth on average nationwide; one experience doesn't mean anything.

BenJ wrote:But I think it's pretty unlikely that Cornell is substantially better known than Brown or Dartmouth on average nationwide; one experience doesn't mean anything.

Nobody knows what Brown or Darthmouth is.

342848386278 wrote:
Depends on where you are. As a native Oklahoman, I can say from experience that nobody has heard of Brown or Dartmouth, though some know of Cornell.

Has no one in Oklahoma ever watched Varsity Blues?

UH has a horrible UG reputation, unlike the law center

342848386278 wrote:

legalease9 wrote:"Great Schools" are considered great because of their graduate programs. So in other words it is the Law Schools (and med schools and graduate schools etc.) that raise the prestige of the undergraduate program, not the other way around.

+180.

Look at NYU.

On the flip side, this is exactly why some incredible undergrads don't get the layman credit they deserve. Undergrads that focus on undergrad students can provide a much better UG experience (access to professors, research opportunities, UG-centric administration) but don't rank as highly because they don't have cash cow law-schools, med-schools, or grad-schools attached to them. Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesly, Vassar, Kenyan, Brown, Dartmouth, Haverford, Grinnell...

Blatant anti-Davidson trolling.

timertimer61 wrote:i ask b/c it seems like if the UG is good, then law school is good. But on the other hand, just b/c a law school is good doesn't necessarily translate into the UG being good

I appreciate the formal logic in this thread. I suddenly have the urge to construct contrapositives. LSAT flashbacks anyone?

rayiner wrote:

BenJ wrote:But I think it's pretty unlikely that Cornell is substantially better known than Brown or Dartmouth on average nationwide; one experience doesn't mean anything.

Nobody knows what Brown or Darthmouth is.

Not true, Hermione is going to Brown and Dartmouth was where Freddie Prince Jr. father wanted him to go in the movie, "She's All That."

There is definitely a strong correlation. And not just with undergrad prestige, but with overall university prestige. Vanderbilt, Duke, and WUSTL have great undergrads, as well as great medical schools (I'm sure there are plenty more that I can't think of off the top of my head). Most schools with top law schools also have great business schools (check out the USNWR business school rankings. Most of the T20 law schools also have T20 business schools).

Also, Texas, Fordham, BU, and Minnesota have poor undergrad programs? Since when? The Big Ten is hands down the best academic power-sports conference, and Texas is itself a very reputable program. Don't know much about Fordham's undergrad, but I know BU is also pretty solid. Definitely not Ivy material, but still solid.

romothesavior wrote:The Big Ten is hands down the best academic power-sports conference

I'm going to go ahead and plug the Pac-10 here: Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Washington

Pearalegal wrote: .... and Dartmouth was where Freddie Prince Jr. father wanted him to go in the movie, "She's All That."

I actually almost posted this but decided that mentioning Varsity Blues would be a little bit more masculine than mentioning a movie with freestyle battles about who is going to be prom Queen and performance art pieces featuring a hackey sack. In any event, I find it interesting that Paul Walker is the common denominator in two movies that could help improve lay prestige amongst two ivy league schools.

romothesavior wrote:The Big Ten is hands down the best academic power-sports conference

Big 10 - ACC Challenge:

Relative Rank: Big 10 School: ACC School:
1. Northwestern - 12 Duke - 8
2. Michigan - 27 UVA - 23
3. Illinois - 39 Wake Forest - 28
4. Wisconsin - 39 UNC - 30
5. Penn State - 47 Boston College - 34
6. Ohio State - 53 Georgia Tech - 35
7. Purdue - 61 Miami - 51
8. Minnesota - 61 Maryland - 53
9. Indiana - 71 Clemson - 61
10. Michigan State - 71 Virginia Tech - 71
11. Iowa - 71 NC State - 83
12. N/A Florida State -102

Looks like the ACC wins with 9 wins, 1 loss, and 1 tie. Put another way, the ACC has six schools ranked higher than the Big 10's third school. Just sayin'.

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/educatio ... g-ten.html
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-co ... n-acc.html