Top Law Schools

In regards to statistics, a Median lSAT score of 167 is the median for UCLA, Vanderbilt, UT, Georgetown, and Cornell. WUSTL has a 168 median LSAT, tied with Northwestern and Umich, higher than Berkeley's 166. All of these schools have the same GPA median.

So, whats going on here? Why are chances of biglaw dismal at some of these and good at others?

Your titles entails that you will never understand.

AnMzungu wrote:Your titles entails that you will never understand.

What was the point of making a smartass comment when you could have helped me by answering the question?

What answer are you looking for? Some schools have better reputations and better national placement ability, even though they largely pull from the same pool of students. That's why you look at job stats instead of medians to determine where you want to go.

Edit: Also, the biglaw gap between Georgetown and UCLA/WashU is actually relatively small, considering the steep drop-off once you go lower in the rankings.

pleaseberkeley wrote:In regards to statistics, a Median lSAT score of 167 is the median for UCLA, Vanderbilt, UT, Georgetown, and Cornell. WUSTL has a 168 median LSAT, tied with Northwestern and Umich, higher than Berkeley's 166. All of these schools have the same GPA median.

So, whats going on here? Why are chances of biglaw dismal at some of these and good at others?

because more biglaw firms hire from some than others, and stats don't translate absolutely into hiring. Not sure what else you're looking for.

If stats mattered for hiring law firms would ask for GPA and LSAT. It's generally about the school's reputation and location.

poptart123 wrote:If stats mattered for hiring law firms would ask for GPA and LSAT. It's generally about the school's reputation and location.

So then, the question becomes: What gives some schools with similar stats better reputations than others?

pleaseberkeley wrote:

poptart123 wrote:If stats mattered for hiring law firms would ask for GPA and LSAT. It's generally about the school's reputation and location.

So then, the question becomes: What gives some schools with similar stats better reputations than others?

Because reputation isn't "given". It's not like there's an awards show every year where major employers assign numerical rankings to schools for their reputation. Once you're in law school, no one will ever ask about your LSAT and undergraduate GPA again (except for some weird outlier firms I've heard about that ask for undergraduate transcripts in some cases). Those statistics are meaningless outside of admissions offices.

Bos-Wash proximity and prestige.

pleaseberkeley wrote:

poptart123 wrote:If stats mattered for hiring law firms would ask for GPA and LSAT. It's generally about the school's reputation and location.

So then, the question becomes: What gives some schools with similar stats better reputations than others?

UCLA feeds to smaller markets than GULC and Cornell. East Coast bias for east coast schools. and no one outside the midwest has ever heard of a Washington U in St. Louis prior to applying to law school

Cornell is better for biglaw because they place mainly into New York, the largest legal market by far. Their LSAT median is the second lowest among the T13 because of location.

Georgetown is better for biglaw because they place mainly into New York and DC, the two largest legal markets, and have a strong national reputation in the other major markets.

UCLA is worse for biglaw because they place 90% of grads into CA (SF/SV and LA) which only has so many biglaw firms. Their LSAT is also somewhat inflated because of location (CA residents don't want to leave, and non-residents want to come to CA).

WUSTL is worse for biglaw because it places mainly into smaller Midwest markets. They're also the least selective of this group despite their medians because they take tons of splitters and reverse splitters (look at their 25th percentiles).

What everyone else said. Also, you're making far too much of the LSAT medians. They're easy to game. WUSTL has like zero distance between their 50th and 75th, and their 25th is consistently around 160. They let a ton of people in at the bottom that would absolutely not make the cut at MBCG.

Rigo wrote:Bos-Wash proximity and prestige.

Bos?

Cornell and Georgetown also have reputations that have been built up over decades. At this point, the top schools have strong alumni networks in major firms, proven track records of producing quality graduates, and as people mentioned above, tight connections to major legal markets. A school can boost LSAT medians quickly by throwing money at high scoring applicants. Building up a top tier nationwide reputation and network takes a lot longer.

stego wrote:

Rigo wrote:Bos-Wash proximity and prestige.

Bos?

Boston-WashingtonDC. The Acela corridor.

half moon wrote:Cornell and Georgetown also have reputations that have been built up over decades. At this point, the top schools have strong alumni networks in major firms, proven track records of producing quality graduates, and as people mentioned above, tight connections to major legal markets. A school can boost LSAT medians quickly by throwing money at high scoring applicants. Building up a top tier nationwide reputation and network takes a lot longer.

USC and Notre Dame have all of these (perhaps the best alumni networks and lay prestige in their respective regions, plus bona fide national rep) and they aren't even on UCLA/WUSTL's level. So it has to be something more I would think.

dm1683 wrote:

half moon wrote:Cornell and Georgetown also have reputations that have been built up over decades. At this point, the top schools have strong alumni networks in major firms, proven track records of producing quality graduates, and as people mentioned above, tight connections to major legal markets. A school can boost LSAT medians quickly by throwing money at high scoring applicants. Building up a top tier nationwide reputation and network takes a lot longer.

USC and Notre Dame have all of these (perhaps the best alumni networks and lay prestige in their respective regions, plus bona fide national rep) and they aren't even on UCLA/WUSTL's level. So it has to be something more I would think.

I think comparing the alumni networks at USC/ND to a T13 school is a little silly. I'm sure there are plenty of USC alums ready to help current students, but a school like Cornell just has way more representation in large firms and prestige positions across the country.

cavalier1138 wrote:

dm1683 wrote:

half moon wrote:Cornell and Georgetown also have reputations that have been built up over decades. At this point, the top schools have strong alumni networks in major firms, proven track records of producing quality graduates, and as people mentioned above, tight connections to major legal markets. A school can boost LSAT medians quickly by throwing money at high scoring applicants. Building up a top tier nationwide reputation and network takes a lot longer.

USC and Notre Dame have all of these (perhaps the best alumni networks and lay prestige in their respective regions, plus bona fide national rep) and they aren't even on UCLA/WUSTL's level. So it has to be something more I would think.

I think comparing the alumni networks at USC/ND to a T13 school is a little silly. I'm sure there are plenty of USC alums ready to help current students, but a school like Cornell just has way more representation in large firms and prestige positions across the country.

True, but when I think of what "strong alumni network" means, I don't think "has more representation at top firms/positions." I think more along the lines of "has grads who are especially willing to help/step up to the plate for people from their school." That's what USC and ND are famous for.

dm1683 wrote:

half moon wrote:Cornell and Georgetown also have reputations that have been built up over decades. At this point, the top schools have strong alumni networks in major firms, proven track records of producing quality graduates, and as people mentioned above, tight connections to major legal markets. A school can boost LSAT medians quickly by throwing money at high scoring applicants. Building up a top tier nationwide reputation and network takes a lot longer.

USC and Notre Dame have all of these (perhaps the best alumni networks and lay prestige in their respective regions, plus bona fide national rep) and they aren't even on UCLA/WUSTL's level. So it has to be something more I would think.

Lay prestige doesn't matter. It matters what other lawyers think since they're the ones doing the hiring at firms.

dm1683 wrote: True, but when I think of what "strong alumni network" means, I don't think "has more representation at top firms/positions." I think more along the lines of "has grads who are especially willing to help/step up to the plate for people from their school." That's what USC and ND are famous for.

Right. But the key factors that distinguish Cornell's strong alumni network from Notre Dame's strong alumni network is where those alumni are situated and what they're doing.

cavalier1138 wrote:

pleaseberkeley wrote:

poptart123 wrote:If stats mattered for hiring law firms would ask for GPA and LSAT. It's generally about the school's reputation and location.

So then, the question becomes: What gives some schools with similar stats better reputations than others?

Because reputation isn't "given". It's not like there's an awards show every year where major employers assign numerical rankings to schools for their reputation. Once you're in law school, no one will ever ask about your LSAT and undergraduate GPA again (except for some weird outlier firms I've heard about that ask for undergraduate transcripts in some cases). Those statistics are meaningless outside of admissions offices.

Isn't the "awards show" US News?

Veil of Ignorance wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

pleaseberkeley wrote:

poptart123 wrote:If stats mattered for hiring law firms would ask for GPA and LSAT. It's generally about the school's reputation and location.

So then, the question becomes: What gives some schools with similar stats better reputations than others?

Because reputation isn't "given". It's not like there's an awards show every year where major employers assign numerical rankings to schools for their reputation. Once you're in law school, no one will ever ask about your LSAT and undergraduate GPA again (except for some weird outlier firms I've heard about that ask for undergraduate transcripts in some cases). Those statistics are meaningless outside of admissions offices.

Isn't the "awards show" US News?

Law firms don't assign the rankings in US News, nor do they necessarily care what those rankings are

stego wrote:

Veil of Ignorance wrote: Isn't the "awards show" US News?

Law firms don't assign the rankings in US News, nor do they necessarily care what those rankings are

Peer assessment score & lawyers and judges assessment score are pretty big factors in the rankings though, so successful grads are in positions to reinforce the self fulfilling loop.

It's really hard to break up the T13 no matter what the inputs (LSAT score) are from year to year. A lot of this stuff is ingrained and systemic and thus leads to better outputs at Georgetown and Cornell despite the same inputs as UCLA and WUSTL.

dm1683 wrote:

half moon wrote:Cornell and Georgetown also have reputations that have been built up over decades. At this point, the top schools have strong alumni networks in major firms, proven track records of producing quality graduates, and as people mentioned above, tight connections to major legal markets. A school can boost LSAT medians quickly by throwing money at high scoring applicants. Building up a top tier nationwide reputation and network takes a lot longer.

USC and Notre Dame have all of these (perhaps the best alumni networks and lay prestige in their respective regions, plus bona fide national rep) and they aren't even on UCLA/WUSTL's level. So it has to be something more I would think.

USC is easily in the same class as UCLA/WUSTL (I don't know enough about ND's employment stats to throw them in). Just look at the past five or so year average of biglaw/clerk percentages.

OP, check out http://www.lawschooltransparency.com

Cornell's biglaw/clerkship stats are significantly greater than the other schools you mentioned, and LSAT/GPA should no be a consideration at all if you are gunning for biglaw. Don't go to a non-t13 if you want a ~75% chance at landing a position in biglaw