Top Law Schools

Curious as to what others view as the lowest ranked school they would accept if they had the possibility of sitting out a cycle and re-applying.

Curiosity in part inspired by not really having a clear answer to this myself.

Aside from retake, COMPLETELY depends on what you wanna do, how much you can do it for, and where you wanna do it

Roughly Top20. Schools with a Big Law rate of at least 30% and close to 10% in Fed Clerkship. Ideally, it'd be a lot higher that that, but that's the absolutely lowest as I would settle for.

Lower T1-High T2 for free, or in the region that you want to practice in. But again it really depends on what you are trying to do and what your willingness to incur debt is.

At sticker price? Yale.

The whole idea of tiers is kind of stupid in my opinion. If you have a very select set of goals, a good financial situation (as in full tuition or close to it scholarship), and very strong ties to a market, then I think that schools all throughout the rankings can make sense. For example, a school like Montana Law is ranked 121, so third tier. And yet, they have a better employment score than a school like say USC, ranked 20. It's all about the goals you have and your personal finances. Obviously you wouldn't take Montana over USC if you want southern California or biglaw, but if you wanted to work in Montana, you basically have to go to a school like Montana Law. Rankings are essentially meaningless.

TheUnicornHunter wrote:At sticker price? Yale.

Agreed. Maybe Harvard.

With a full ride? A strong regional in a market I want to practice in.

47

If I'm graduating from college in 2015 economy, prolly none. If I'm graduating in 2008/09, Campbell or nay TTT

Indiana TTTech

I do think its situation dictates. I know people who have made non-ABA schools work for them, but thats not a good strategy for most.

Personally I got into a top regional school and even if I do make it into a T14 it won't be nearby, so I dont think I would go. I dont consider my situation settling, though. Prior to getting in to what was realistically my first choice I would have settled for much less of its all there was, as the anecdotes of friends who have done well out of Suffolk made it seem like it would work if need be. Fortunately I dont have to "settle" as I got in to other strong regional "T1" schools.

I did decide after applying if I didnt get in to BU/BC I would wait a year.

Mike

mike0331 wrote:I do think its situation dictates. I know people who have made non-ABA schools work for them, but thats not a good strategy for most.

Personally I got into a top regional school and even if I do make it into a T14 it won't be nearby, so I dont think I would go. I dont consider my situation settling, though. Prior to getting in to what was realistically my first choice I would have settled for much less of its all there was, as the anecdotes of friends who have done well out of Suffolk made it seem like it would work if need be. Fortunately I dont have to "settle" as I got in to other strong regional "T1" schools.

I did decide after applying if I didnt get in to BU/BC I would wait a year.

Mike

whats ur COA

Sticker at T13, although it's still pretty bad.

Whichever one volunteers to pay my bills and offers higher than a 50/50 shot at landing a JD required job that isn't paid for by the school. I'm easy and work with what I got.

When I applied to law school, I probably thought "Tier 1."

After graduating and being in the field for almost 2 years, I would say Top 7. HYSCCNP for biglaw, or HYSCCNB for public interest/government. And I wouldn't even pay sticker at those. Those are just the only schools worth going to period, in that the waste of 3 years where you could be doing something else more productive--coupled with the risk of falling flat on your face after graduation--is worth it.

JCougar wrote:When I applied to law school, I probably thought "Tier 1."

After graduating and being in the field for almost 2 years, I would say Top 7. HYSCCNP for biglaw, or HYSCCNB for public interest/government. And I wouldn't even pay sticker at those. Those are just the only schools worth going to period, in that the waste of 3 years where you could be doing something else more productive--coupled with the risk of falling flat on your face after graduation--is worth it.

[youtube]MpraJYnbVtE[/youtube]

mvp99 wrote:

mike0331 wrote:I do think its situation dictates. I know people who have made non-ABA schools work for them, but thats not a good strategy for most.

Personally I got into a top regional school and even if I do make it into a T14 it won't be nearby, so I dont think I would go. I dont consider my situation settling, though. Prior to getting in to what was realistically my first choice I would have settled for much less of its all there was, as the anecdotes of friends who have done well out of Suffolk made it seem like it would work if need be. Fortunately I dont have to "settle" as I got in to other strong regional "T1" schools.

I did decide after applying if I didnt get in to BU/BC I would wait a year.

Mike

whats ur COA

Nothing anywhere due to GI benefits, rare I know. I wouldnt pay sticker anywhere. In fact I wouldnt take on more than 30-40k in debt anywhere... but Im a cautious spender generally in life. Id also trade lifestyle and general happiness for lower starting salary, and fortunately Ill have that option.

Mike

JCougar wrote:When I applied to law school, I probably thought "Tier 1."

After graduating and being in the field for almost 2 years, I would say Top 7. HYSCCNP for biglaw, or HYSCCNB for public interest/government. And I wouldn't even pay sticker at those. Those are just the only schools worth going to period, in that the waste of 3 years where you could be doing something else more productive--coupled with the risk of falling flat on your face after graduation--is worth it.

This sounds pretty ridiculous.

Moneytrees wrote:

JCougar wrote:When I applied to law school, I probably thought "Tier 1."

After graduating and being in the field for almost 2 years, I would say Top 7. HYSCCNP for biglaw, or HYSCCNB for public interest/government. And I wouldn't even pay sticker at those. Those are just the only schools worth going to period, in that the waste of 3 years where you could be doing something else more productive--coupled with the risk of falling flat on your face after graduation--is worth it.

This sounds pretty ridiculous.

I wonder what a world with only 8 US law schools would even look like.

US News Rankings are a pitiful way to judge which law school to go too. US News considers size of law library as a factor. Law School Transparency and Above the Law's rankings at least use factors potential law school students care about, i.e., jobs.

To answer your question is difficult, three factors play a role: (1) location, (2) cost and (3) job prospects. Unless going to a top school, most law schools are regional meaning that you are most likely to find a job (if at all) around your law school. Cost are a huge factor, because even top law schools at sticker price are not worth it. $100K+ in debt for a degree that will more than likely not land you a $100K+ job is not a good investment. I think I have read your projected debt from law school should match your likely yearly salary to be worth it. Thus, if you have $50K in debt, you better be able to find a job paying $50K out of law school. And finally, job prospects are key. Even if the law school is in a location you like, will not get you too much in debt, if the job prospects stink, then why bother.

That is way you answer your question. If you want a magical answer: "don't go to any law school ranked 43rd or below", that gets you no where.

nick417 wrote:US News Rankings are a pitiful way to judge which law school to go too. US News considers size of law library as a factor. Law School Transparency and Above the Law's rankings at least use factors potential law school students care about, i.e., jobs.

Not here to defend US News rankings and I agree basing a decision on a number next to a school's name is ridiculous. But this part of your post is inaccurate. US News does take placement success into account and it's weighted at 20% of the overall score (broken down into 14% placement at 9 months, 4% placement at graduation, and 2% bar passage rate). Within the category of placement success, US News gives various weights to different types of jobs, with full time long term jobs requiring a JD or JD-advantage getting full weight, and "lesser" jobs getting lesser weight. As for the library size, "Library Resources" makes up 0.75% of the score, so a drop in the bucket, particularly compared to Placement Success.

Is US News methodology great? I don't happen to think so. I think the weights they assign to various categories should be different and their rankings overall should be taken with a shaker of salt. But it's inaccurate to say "at least LST and ATL use factors students care about like jobs" with the unstated premise being that US News doesn't.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... s-rankings

Seconding what other posters have said, depends on your goals and stuff. Rankings only matter if you care about what people think of you when you say where you went to school; if you care about debt and employment, look at those statistics.

I think if you really want to get an idea of what the lowest ranked school people would settle for is, just check out lsn and look at where people applied. It wouldn't tell you why that person wouldn't have settled for a lower ranked school, but it will tell you where that applicant drew the line. Another idea would be to open up a poll for this thread.

BigZuck wrote:

JCougar wrote:When I applied to law school, I probably thought "Tier 1."

After graduating and being in the field for almost 2 years, I would say Top 7. HYSCCNP for biglaw, or HYSCCNB for public interest/government. And I wouldn't even pay sticker at those. Those are just the only schools worth going to period, in that the waste of 3 years where you could be doing something else more productive--coupled with the risk of falling flat on your face after graduation--is worth it.

[youtube]MpraJYnbVtE[/youtube]

Those are the only schools where you're close to being assured of getting a job close to what you want/that allows you to pay off your loans.

If you think that's a high bar to set...well, the AMA has figured out how to do this with all but the most gutter-dwelling schools. When you call a school "elite" because it gives you 50/50 odds where the outcomes are 1) a stressful job with long hours and high turnover that at least helps you pay off your BigLoans, or 2) your career is over even before it starts--your standards are probably too low.

JCougar wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

JCougar wrote:When I applied to law school, I probably thought "Tier 1."

After graduating and being in the field for almost 2 years, I would say Top 7. HYSCCNP for biglaw, or HYSCCNB for public interest/government. And I wouldn't even pay sticker at those. Those are just the only schools worth going to period, in that the waste of 3 years where you could be doing something else more productive--coupled with the risk of falling flat on your face after graduation--is worth it.

[youtube]MpraJYnbVtE[/youtube]

Those are the only schools where you're close to being assured of getting a job close to what you want/that allows you to pay off your loans.

If you think that's a high bar to set...well, the AMA has figured out how to do this with all but the most gutter-dwelling schools. When you call a school "elite" because it gives you 50/50 odds where the outcomes are 1) a stressful job with long hours and high turnover that at least helps you pay off your BigLoans, or 2) your career is over even before it starts--your standards are probably too low.

I think not including, say, Duke as a school that is ok if you want big law is shark jumpy

Also, I'm sure that this is me being naive or whatever but I do think there is probably still a need for small firm/local government types and that state flagships are fine. Maybe they should cost less and maybe there should only be 1 law school per state (or, maybe states with small legal markets like New Mexico and Arizona would have one combined law school to cover the general region). I think we could probably lop off half the law schools out there and be ok. But less than 10? That's too much.

Ex Cearulo wrote:

nick417 wrote:US News Rankings are a pitiful way to judge which law school to go too. US News considers size of law library as a factor. Law School Transparency and Above the Law's rankings at least use factors potential law school students care about, i.e., jobs.

Not here to defend US News rankings and I agree basing a decision on a number next to a school's name is ridiculous. But this part of your post is inaccurate. US News does take placement success into account and it's weighted at 20% of the overall score (broken down into 14% placement at 9 months, 4% placement at graduation, and 2% bar passage rate). Within the category of placement success, US News gives various weights to different types of jobs, with full time long term jobs requiring a JD or JD-advantage getting full weight, and "lesser" jobs getting lesser weight. As for the library size, "Library Resources" makes up 0.75% of the score, so a drop in the bucket, particularly compared to Placement Success.

Is US News methodology great? I don't happen to think so. I think the weights they assign to various categories should be different and their rankings overall should be taken with a shaker of salt. But it's inaccurate to say "at least LST and ATL use factors students care about like jobs" with the unstated premise being that US News doesn't.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... s-rankings

You make a valid point.

The overall point is rank of law school from US news is not a very effective way to determine where to go. Where you should go to school should depend upon (1) location; (2) costs; and (3) likelihood of job placement. Location is usually underrated but should play a role.