T14 top 50% vs. T50 top 25% vs. TT top 10% vs. TTT top 5% Forum

[lawsearcher]

Long-time lurker with a first post. I have been trying to get around the issue of anticipated class rank based on school choice. I know the general consensus is to expect median, but stronger candidates obviously tend to matriculate to stronger schools.

So let me approach the question this way. What does the TLS community think is easiest to obtain:

-Top 50% at T14
-Top 25% at T50
-Top 10% at TT
-Top 5% at TTT or TTTT

In other words, could you make a case for that going to a T2 with $$$ trumps a T50 with $ because it's easier for a random student to obtain the requisite big law threshold.

*Yes I understand that is a very generous big law threshold.

[goldenflash19]

Don't every bank on falling within a certain percentile at any school. Top 10% at a TT may seem easy, but 90% of the class doesn't hit it.

[20130312]

By definition, you have a 50% chance of being at or above median at a T14, but only a 5% chance of being top 5% at a TTT. Do you really want to risk that?

[03121202698008]

You simply cannot equate one with the other. Someone in the top 5% at a T14 won't necessarily be in the top 20% at a TTTT. They probably would...but one doesn't correlate directly with the other. Some people choose to go to shitty schools despite the potential to go to a much higher school. There are also way less people in the top 5% than the top 50% at a T14...

[bk1]

1. Never try to estimate your class rank.

2. Assume median with the realization that about 1/2 the time you'll end up below it.

[STLMizzou]

I think it is all about hedging your bets. Kind of like playing roulette, you can bet numbers and win big, or bet colors and have a better shot at winning at all.

It really depends on the person/offers/market.

If you get a chance to get a full ride to a regional TT or TTT, in a market you are dead set on working in, for that person there may be a good reason to go there over a t50. Same goes for a t50 over a t14 in the right situations. I have even heard rational reasoning to go to a TT/TTT over a t14 (already having job pretty much lined up, family reasons, etc.)

tl;dr= There is catch-all answer to this question.

[JamMasterJ]

I think it is all about hedging your bets. Kind of like playing roulette, you can bet numbers and win big, or bet colors and have a better shot at winning at all.

It really depends on the person/offers/market.

If you get a chance to get a full ride to a regional TT or TTT, in a market you are dead set on working in, for that person there may be a good reason to go there over a t50. Same goes for a t50 over a t14 in the right situations. I have even heard rational reasoning to go to a TT/TTT over a t14 (already having job pretty much lined up, family reasons, etc.)

tl;dr= There is catch-all answer to this question.

the funny thing is, top half at a T14 is the best position to be in, and if we're assuming acceptance to all of these schools, it's the easiest to achieve.

[bk1]

I think it is all about hedging your bets. Kind of like playing roulette, you can bet numbers and win big, or bet colors and have a better shot at winning at all.

the funny thing is, top half at a T14 is the best position to be in, and if we're assuming acceptance to all of these schools, it's the easiest to achieve.

T1/TT/TTT = Putting a little money on numbers.
T14 = Putting a lot of money on colors.

[Indifferent]

Oh god.

Don't go to a school where you wouldn't feel comfortable finishing median. Going to a school and banking on getting good grades is a terrifically poor life decision. I would even go so far as to say don't go to law school banking on getting biglaw (although I guess it would be safe to say that admission to a T10 gives you a high likelihood of success). Going to anything lower than a T14 without a pretty generous scholarship and interest in working in that region is generally a poor decision (there are plenty of exceptions, I know). But for god's sake, don't choose one school because you have a bit more scholarship money and you somehow inanely deduce that it's easier to get a specific class rank. Sure, generally it's easier to finish in the top 25% at a TTT than at a T14, but getting into the top 10% is significantly more arbitrary/dependent on multiple variables and no one should ever, EVER go to law school banking on finishing that highly ranked - less top 5%.

[STLMizzou]

Oh, I voted for top 50% at t14, because with no other information to go on that would be what I would answer, but in some situations I can see this as not being the best answer.

Example: Sticker at Texas or half scholly at BU for somebody that wants to work in Boston? I might choose BU in that case.

[JamMasterJ]

I think it is all about hedging your bets. Kind of like playing roulette, you can bet numbers and win big, or bet colors and have a better shot at winning at all.

the funny thing is, top half at a T14 is the best position to be in, and if we're assuming acceptance to all of these schools, it's the easiest to achieve.

T1/TT/TTT = Putting a little money on numbers.
T14 = Putting a lot of money on colors.

oh, right. Never mind. I didn't pick up on the fact that scholarship amount was part of the conversation. I thought this was OP's "all things being equal" hypothetical.

[beach_terror]

Don't equate scholarship money with potential to finish at the top of your class. There is no relationship between the two. If there was, I'd be at the very bottom of my class.

[Grizz]

If you really are a long time lurker you would have realized how utterly stupid this topic is.

[JamMasterJ]

Don't equate scholarship money with potential to finish at the top of your class. There is no relationship between the two. If there was, I'd be at the very bottom of my class.

no one did. We were clarifying the terms of how the roulette hypothetical is applicable re: risk v. reward

[beach_terror]

Don't equate scholarship money with potential to finish at the top of your class. There is no relationship between the two. If there was, I'd be at the very bottom of my class.

no one did. We were clarifying the terms of how the roulette hypothetical is applicable re: risk v. reward

I'm sick, but I'm assuming that's what was meant by:

In other words, could you make a case for that going to a T2 with $$$ trumps a T50 with $ because it's easier for a random student to obtain the requisite big law threshold.

[JamMasterJ]

Don't equate scholarship money with potential to finish at the top of your class. There is no relationship between the two. If there was, I'd be at the very bottom of my class.

no one did. We were clarifying the terms of how the roulette hypothetical is applicable re: risk v. reward

I'm sick, but I'm assuming that's what was meant by:

In other words, could you make a case for that going to a T2 with $$$ trumps a T50 with $ because it's easier for a random student to obtain the requisite big law threshold.

Oh, I thought you were replying to the other discussion about money and school rank. Again, I fail at RC...

I'll go now.

[romothesavior]

Do I think a median student at a T14 would do better at a lower ranked school? Yes. Do I think a top 5% student at a TTT would do worse at a T14? Yes. But the question is, by how much? Will it be enough to make the job prospects equal? I don't think so. You really cannot begin to equate these numbers in any meaningful way. If you're thinking about passing up on a higher ranked school because you think you'll do better at a lower ranked school, then you're making a mistake. If you pass up on a T14 for a lower ranked school, will you do better at the lower ranked school? I would imagine so. But will you kill it at the lower ranked school, thus putting you on even footing with a median T14 student? I doubt it.

Also, not only is median at a T14 easier to achieve than the rest of your options, I'd rather be median at a T14 than top 25% at a T50, top 10% at a TT, or top 5% at a TTT.

[lawsearcher]

This is not my plan, just trying to gauge differences between the levels of schools. I mean, virtually every person will have decide whether to go the highest ranked school they can or take money from somewhere lower. Big law is just the only semi-reliable indicator to use for the example.

I don’t believe this is stupid. In a world where you are biglaw or bust, isn’t it possible that you might be better off at a T2. I’m going to give a random example.

You have a T1 of University of Washington and a TT of Seattle University. UW places 25% biglaw and Seattle does 10% (not actual numbers obviously). If you are big law or bust, isn’t it possible that you’re better off going to Seattle? Couldn’t the raised medians of GPA and LSAT for the average student make it that much harder to make top quarter at the T1.

You could say the same for Georgia/Georgia St or for Northwestern/University of Illinois

Otherwise, it’s saying that law school is a majority crapshoot. Despite GPA and LSAT, everyone has a pretty close to equal chance of succeeding. I don’t know if I agree with that. I think a person at median at Duke would likely finish top quarter or better at North Carolina or Wake. They aren’t likely to also be at median. As correctly pointed out, it's virtually impossible to know this answer. I didn't expect to walk away from this post with a grand plan to game the system, just wanted to hear various opinions form knowledgable people.

[beach_terror]

Couldn’t the raised medians of GPA and LSAT for the average student make it that much harder to make top quarter at the T1.

No, it doesn't work like this.

[03121202698008]

This is not my plan, just trying to gauge differences between the levels of schools. I mean, virtually every person will have decide whether to go the highest ranked school they can or take money from somewhere lower. Big law is just the only semi-reliable indicator to use for the example.

I don’t believe this is stupid. In a world where you are biglaw or bust, isn’t it possible that you might be better off at a T2. I’m going to give a random example.

You have a T1 of University of Washington and a TT of Seattle University. UW places 25% biglaw and Seattle does 10% (not actual numbers obviously). If you are big law or bust, isn’t it possible that you’re better off going to Seattle? Couldn’t the raised medians of GPA and LSAT for the average student make it that much harder to make top quarter at the T1.

You could say the same for Georgia/Georgia St or for Northwestern/University of Illinois

Otherwise, it’s saying that law school is a majority crapshoot. Despite GPA and LSAT, everyone has a pretty close to equal chance of succeeding. I don’t know if I agree with that. I think a person at median at Duke would likely finish top quarter or better at North Carolina or Wake. They aren’t likely to also be at median. As correctly pointed out, it's virtually impossible to know this answer. I didn't expect to walk away from this post with a grand plan to game the system, just wanted to hear various opinions form knowledgable people.

You're assuming you can rely on being in either of those two categories. Grades are simply too unpredictable. My grades are all over the place semester to semester, from bottom 35% to top 10% (and not all in an upward trend either). The better answer is don't go to either school if you want BigLaw.

[bk1]

This is not my plan, just trying to gauge differences between the levels of schools. I mean, virtually every person will have decide whether to go the highest ranked school they can or take money from somewhere lower. Big law is just the only semi-reliable indicator to use for the example.

I don’t believe this is stupid. In a world where you are biglaw or bust, isn’t it possible that you might be better off at a T2. I’m going to give a random example.

You have a T1 of University of Washington and a TT of Seattle University. UW places 25% biglaw and Seattle does 10% (not actual numbers obviously). If you are big law or bust, isn’t it possible that you’re better off going to Seattle? Couldn’t the raised medians of GPA and LSAT for the average student make it that much harder to make top quarter at the T1.

You could say the same for Georgia/Georgia St or for Northwestern/University of Illinois

Otherwise, it’s saying that law school is a majority crapshoot. Despite GPA and LSAT, everyone has a pretty close to equal chance of succeeding. I don’t know if I agree with that. I think a person at median at Duke would likely finish top quarter or better at North Carolina or Wake. They aren’t likely to also be at median. As correctly pointed out, it's virtually impossible to know this answer. I didn't expect to walk away from this post with a grand plan to game the system, just wanted to hear various opinions form knowledgable people.

LSAT/GPA only account for around 20% of your grades. That seems like a small fraction to be relying on to be better than your classmates.

It's not that everyone has an actually equal chance of succeeding, the thing is you don't know what your chances are. Law school grades are based on law school exams. The people who end up at the top of the class are generally the ones who are better at taking law school exams. They were better at law school exams prior to entering law school, so not everyone had an equal chance, but they didn't know they would be good at law school exams. Conversely, the people who are bad at law school exams did not know they were bad at law school exams. That's why everyone has an equal chance. Not because they actually have an equal chance, because they don't, but because nobody can really know what their chances at succeeding are prior to actually being in law school.

The other issue is the one that blowhard mentioned. Law school grades are about adapting to a given professor in a given class. It isn't necessarily easy to do and some will do it better than others. Again, you're not going to necessarily know how good you are at this prior to entering law school.

[Indifferent]

The better answer is don't go to either school if you want BigLaw.

This, in every scenario but NU vs. UIUC.

[beach_terror]

LSAT/GPA only account for around 20% of your grades. That seems like a small fraction to be relying on to be better than your classmates.

Do you have a source for this?

[lawsearcher]

Ok, I generally agree with the concept of the law school exam test taker being unknowable. But aren't there likely to be more people who are successful at taking law school exams at the better schools. Things like learning how to take an adapt to a test or your professor seem like something intuitive and relatable to LSAT/GPA.

Otherwise, you're saying you could port the entire class from NYLS and replace them with Fordham students and the professors and employers would be none the wiser 3 years later.

[bk1]

LSAT/GPA only account for around 20% of your grades. That seems like a small fraction to be relying on to be better than your classmates.

Do you have a source for this?

http://www.lsac.org/jd/pdfs/LSAT-Score- ... rmance.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c