Top Law Schools

I don't understand how USNWR rankings roll. I can think of two schools, one in the t20 and then one that's ranked in the 30s that have nearly identical employment stats. In fact, the school in the 30 has better combined big firm/fed clerkship stats. Do big firms gauge "prestige" of a school based on these rankings?

Nobody gives a fuck about rankings past ~14.

psyduckiscool wrote:I don't understand how USNWR rankings roll. I can think of two schools, one in the t20 and then one that's ranked in the 30s that have nearly identical employment stats. In fact, the school in the 30 has better combined big firm/fed clerkship stats.

That's because USNWR isn't based solely on employment data.

psyduckiscool wrote:Do big firms gauge "prestige" of a school based on these rankings?

For what I think you are asking, the answer is essentially no.

The rankings are not solely based on employment... You can google what factors are considered my USNWR in there ranking methodology.

scooped

drevo wrote:

psyduckiscool wrote:I don't understand how USNWR rankings roll. I can think of two schools, one in the t20 and then one that's ranked in the 30s that have nearly identical employment stats. In fact, the school in the 30 has better combined big firm/fed clerkship stats.

That's because USNWR isn't based solely on employment data.

psyduckiscool wrote:Do big firms gauge "prestige" of a school based on these rankings?

For what I think you are asking, the answer is essentially no.

Is prestige kind of an established thing at firms? AKA partners choosing to hire from their own schools, etc, etc?

psyduckiscool wrote:

drevo wrote:

psyduckiscool wrote:I don't understand how USNWR rankings roll. I can think of two schools, one in the t20 and then one that's ranked in the 30s that have nearly identical employment stats. In fact, the school in the 30 has better combined big firm/fed clerkship stats.

That's because USNWR isn't based solely on employment data.

psyduckiscool wrote:Do big firms gauge "prestige" of a school based on these rankings?

For what I think you are asking, the answer is essentially no.

Is prestige kind of an established thing at firms? AKA partners choosing to hire from their own schools, etc, etc?

That's not really prestige.. more like nepotism. a partner from GW isn't going to look at an HLS grads' resume and be like "oh you didn't go to my more prestigious law school". People might have some familiarity with fellow alumni, but the strength of the network doesn't outweigh the placement power of a school

I'm pretty sure USNWR lists their criteria on the front page?

jbagelboy wrote:

psyduckiscool wrote:

drevo wrote:

psyduckiscool wrote:I don't understand how USNWR rankings roll. I can think of two schools, one in the t20 and then one that's ranked in the 30s that have nearly identical employment stats. In fact, the school in the 30 has better combined big firm/fed clerkship stats.

That's because USNWR isn't based solely on employment data.

psyduckiscool wrote:Do big firms gauge "prestige" of a school based on these rankings?

For what I think you are asking, the answer is essentially no.

Is prestige kind of an established thing at firms? AKA partners choosing to hire from their own schools, etc, etc?

That's not really prestige.. more like nepotism. a partner from GW isn't going to look at an HLS grads' resume and be like "oh you didn't go to my more prestigious law school". People might have some familiarity with fellow alumni, but the strength of the network doesn't outweigh the placement power of a school

Lol I just read the methodology, I think it's pretty flawed. Not saying it should be 100% employment or bar passage oriented but these factors need to be waaay more stressed than they currently are. Please elaborate by what you mean regarding "placement power" because that's what I'm trying to understand. Is placement power dependent on a school's rank? Outside of the t-14 doesn't it have more to do with the regional reputation, alumni base, etc?

Ignore usnwr

Just use lawschooltransparency.com.

Thats what I mean by placement power. Three crucial data pieces there -

1) FT/JD-required employment (big green employment score) - this is how many ppl are becoming actual lawyers from that school
2) Underemployment - this is your chief risk factor.
3) Sum of "Large Firm" and Fed Clerk scores - these are what TLS considers "good outcomes" bc they typically lead to well paying/"prestigious" careers

If you want a ranking just take 1) - 3) for each school and balance

I know this is going to sound like sacrilege here on TLS, but you have to remember that the role of most law schools is not to "get students jobs." For a long, long time going to law school basically guaranteed employment. Schools were not ranked on their employment stats, they were ranked on the quality of the incoming classes, faculty production, and reputation among practicing attorneys and judges. Schools focused on providing students with a quality theoretical based education concerning law. The individual placement rates between law schools were pretty much similar across most of the T1/T2 schools. The only difference in jobs was the salary and prestige (biglaw, clerkships), but pretty much everyone who passed the bar was able to get SOME kind of legal job.

It's only been over the last 4-5 years that employment has become such a huge catastrophe. US News is just now starting to place serious weight on placement rates. When the legal market recovers (if it ever does), you can expect the US News to go back to it's traditional style of ranking.

Ignoring USNWR is not the answer, because even if you do, everyone else won't. Love it or hate it, it's still the penultimate ranking system for universities. I would suggest blending USNWR, ATL, FindTheBest, and LST scores when evaluating the quality of a particular school. Then again, the differences between schools outside the T14 can be very small. There's no appreciable difference between schools like UIUC, UMN, WUSTL, UW, IUB, and OSU, yet they place all over the T1 spectrum. However the difference between USC and say, Berkeley, is extensive.

The current advice is to attend either a T-14 school or a T-1 regional, in the market you want to practice, at a significant discount.

bugsy33 wrote:For a long, long time going to law school basically guaranteed employment.

This isn't actually true. TTTs were always TTTs.

bk1 wrote:

bugsy33 wrote:For a long, long time going to law school basically guaranteed employment.

This isn't actually true. TTTs were always TTTs.

The individual placement rates between law schools were pretty much similar across most of the T1/T2 schools.

TTTs usually aren't ranked, therefore I'm not really talking about them in the context of USNWR rankings. However bright students graduating from TTTs still had ample opportunities (yes there are very bright students that attend TTTs).

IMO, most senior associates and partners have no idea what the USNWR rankings are. They'll know if you went to a "top five" or "top ten" or "elite" law school, but the precise annual rankings won't really color their perception of you during an interview.

To test this, see whether you can name the top ten national universities on the 2014 USNWR report. I went to undergrad years ago. If I were interviewing a youngster today for a paralegal job, I probably wouldn't differentiate between Berkeley and Chicago, despite the huge gap between them in the rankings. I just vaguely remember that they're both pretty good.

bugsy33 wrote:For a long, long time going to law school basically guaranteed employment.

It's only been over the last 4-5 years that employment has become such a huge catastrophe.

This is not true. Talk to older lawyers, especially those not from T14 schools.

If you dont believe me, here's some Internet evidence from the Harvard Crimson in 1977:

"Interest in law school peaked in 1973-74, Joel S. Russell '71, pre-law adviser at OCS-OCL, said yesterday. The following year applications fell by more than 1000, and while 1975-76 total applications registered an increase, the trend downwards is reasserting itself, he said.

'While 100 people is not much of a fluctuation, I think there has been a tendency for application figures to drop, because a lot of people are beginning to realize that law is not a sure route to a career,' he said."

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1977/ ... 100-fewer/

There were way more graduates than jobs each year probably since the 1970's. It's just coming to a head now because: 1) it's finally affecting the top schools; 2) tuition increases have made getting a $40-60k job at a small firm a much worse outcome; and 3) regional firms are merging into national firms, affecting the prospects at regional schools.

Does the use of "regarding" in the title bother anyone else?

(Oh, and OP, a small part of the rankings have to do with legacy prestige, more so than exists in legal hiring, so take that FWIW.)

rayiner wrote:There were way more graduates than jobs each year probably since the 1970's. It's just coming to a head now because: 1) it's finally affecting the top schools; 2) tuition increases have made getting a $40-60k job at a small firm a much worse outcome; and 3) regional firms are merging into national firms, affecting the prospects at regional schools.

Also, the internet.

Fifteen or even ten years ago there was basically no way for prospective law students to gauge what employment prospects for graduates of particular law schools were, beyond the unhelpful generalization that they were better at more elite schools than at less elite ones. This was true to what is now a shocking extent even five years ago.