2011 Top 50 Go-To Law Schools Forum

[re-applicant]

LOL @ everyone pulling grand conclusions from brief swings in these numbers. I've only seen data going back to 05 in this thread--we don't even know what normal volatility of these figures looks like.

Also, this is a good suggestion:

If I had to take a guess, and this is just a guess, here it goes:

1)Duke & Cornell both have small classes. A difference of 20 students is 10%. Just a few firms with close ties hiring-wise to the schools can make or break it depending on their personal circumstances. Not the same case as with the other programs which have much larger student bodies.
2)Pretend your a firm. You have all types of attorneys in your firm from all different schools. When you go to do your hiring, you still need to keep pulling from everyone's schools. You can cut down your numbers a bit for each school, but you can't just get rid of a school completely (or, at least, the pressure to not do so would be significantly higher). This kind of basic human response automatically favors the small, national/regional schools relative to the bigger schools. This doesn't explain huge rises, but it does explain smaller declines at such schools.

[powerlawyer06]

don't worry i'm sure everyone else just self-selected into PI

that must be the answer!!! It couldn't be that there are too many legal graduates for too few legal jobs . . .

i heard the government is going to start a federal law firm that will hire all the unemployed lawyers.

I wonder what kind of bonuses the bird law department will give. . .

Props for the "Its Always Sunny" reference. If that was not your intention then boo.

[FiveSermon]

if your answer is that more NYU students went to PI than before cause they were scared of getting no-offered by biglaw.....then why can't the same be true of CLS and UChi students???\

it can be but it's probably less likely. when you:

1)recruit students with more of a PI focus or on the fence about it

AND

2)you have more PI opportunities being pushed at the students

AND

3)a much larger percentage of your social network is aiming towards PI to begin with

AND

4)you have an awesome lrap

(all of which is true at nyu over cls or uc)

your students could very well be more inclined to choose the PI route if they're on the fence with biglaw in comparison to CC.

I have to disagree with you that NYU has a MUCH larger PI network than Chicago or Columbia. As to what kinds of students each school attracts, it just seems like mere speculation.

[gwuorbust]

LOL @ everyone pulling grand conclusions from brief swings in these numbers. I've only seen data going back to 05 in this thread--we don't even know what normal volatility of these figures looks like.

Also, this is a good suggestion:

data before 05 is, IMO, worthless. The legal market has undergone tectonic shifts since then. Over the next 5-10 years it is only going to get worse. The splintering that is being felt in other fields (think journalism, media, etc.) is only going to increase in the legal field. That is probably going to lead to downward pressure on legal hiring and wages.

[powerlawyer06]

data before 05 is, IMO, worthless. The legal market has undergone tectonic shifts since then. Over the next 5-10 years it is only going to get worse. The splintering that is being felt in other fields (think journalism, media, etc.) is only going to increase in the legal field. That is probably going to lead to downward pressure on legal hiring and wages.

Seriously though, how much paint do I have to huff to see the future like you can?

Your prognostications about the future carry about as much weight as any other anonymous internet poster. In other words, they are meaningless. Please back your opinions up with facts.

[mst]

data before 05 is, IMO, worthless. The legal market has undergone tectonic shifts since then. Over the next 5-10 years it is only going to get worse. The splintering that is being felt in other fields (think journalism, media, etc.) is only going to increase in the legal field. That is probably going to lead to downward pressure on legal hiring and wages.

Seriously though, how much paint do I have to huff to see the future like you can?

Your prognostications about the future carry about as much weight as any other anonymous internet poster. In other words, they are meaningless. Please back your opinions up with facts.

People on this board that treat this as some kind of legal hearing or something can sometimes be annoying. The dude was just offering an opinion. he even qualified it with "IMO", and "probably" but no, everyone's got to be a lawyer. he didn't say you had to believe it. or read it. and if you think his post was shit, how do you think your post was more worthy of anyone's time?

give it a rest people.

[JG Hall]

if your answer is that more NYU students went to PI than before cause they were scared of getting no-offered by biglaw.....then why can't the same be true of CLS and UChi students???\

it can be but it's probably less likely. when you:

1)recruit students with more of a PI focus or on the fence about it

AND

2)you have more PI opportunities being pushed at the students

AND

3)a much larger percentage of your social network is aiming towards PI to begin with

AND

4)you have an awesome lrap

(all of which is true at nyu over cls or uc)

your students could very well be more inclined to choose the PI route if they're on the fence with biglaw in comparison to CC.

NYU's LRAP is not more awesome than CLS's.

[gwuorbust]

data before 05 is, IMO, worthless. The legal market has undergone tectonic shifts since then. Over the next 5-10 years it is only going to get worse. The splintering that is being felt in other fields (think journalism, media, etc.) is only going to increase in the legal field. That is probably going to lead to downward pressure on legal hiring and wages.

Seriously though, how much paint do I have to huff to see the future like you can?

Your prognostications about the future carry about as much weight as any other anonymous internet poster. In other words, they are meaningless. Please back your opinions up with facts.

huff this many and get back to me:
--ImageRemoved--

I may respond to your comment than the legal market has not changed tomorrow. Or I may not. depends on how much I feel like proving a point for no reason whatsoever. but anyone who has been on TLS for a while will probably agree with me in saying that the legal market of 2005 is not the legal market of 2011 and will definitely not resemble the legal market of 2016.

[powerlawyer06]

data before 05 is, IMO, worthless. The legal market has undergone tectonic shifts since then. Over the next 5-10 years it is only going to get worse. The splintering that is being felt in other fields (think journalism, media, etc.) is only going to increase in the legal field. That is probably going to lead to downward pressure on legal hiring and wages.

Seriously though, how much paint do I have to huff to see the future like you can?

Your prognostications about the future carry about as much weight as any other anonymous internet poster. In other words, they are meaningless. Please back your opinions up with facts.

People on this board that treat this as some kind of legal hearing or something can sometimes be annoying. The dude was just offering an opinion. he even qualified it with "IMO", and "probably" but no, everyone's got to be a lawyer. he didn't say you had to believe it. or read it. and if you think his post was shit, how do you think your post was more worthy of anyone's time?

give it a rest people.

The way I read it, the IMO only referred to the 05 data comment. I guess my comment was crass. I guess what annoys me about TLS is people posting negative economic or law school comments without backing it up with any facts. Even worse is when people make wild projections about the future. The only reason it gets to me is because before I knew anything about law school I googled a question and it lead me to a TLS message board. I got a bunch of conflicting information and most of it was negative. I don’t want future law students to be as confused as I was by the crap that gets passed off as “fact” on these boards.

However if I was rude then I apologize. I am probably guilty of being too positive about the future.

[Anonymous User]

data before 05 is, IMO, worthless. The legal market has undergone tectonic shifts since then. Over the next 5-10 years it is only going to get worse. The splintering that is being felt in other fields (think journalism, media, etc.) is only going to increase in the legal field. That is probably going to lead to downward pressure on legal hiring and wages.

Seriously though, how much paint do I have to huff to see the future like you can?

Your prognostications about the future carry about as much weight as any other anonymous internet poster. In other words, they are meaningless. Please back your opinions up with facts.

People on this board that treat this as some kind of legal hearing or something can sometimes be annoying. The dude was just offering an opinion. he even qualified it with "IMO", and "probably" but no, everyone's got to be a lawyer. he didn't say you had to believe it. or read it. and if you think his post was shit, how do you think your post was more worthy of anyone's time?

give it a rest people.

The way I read it, the IMO only referred to the 05 data comment. I guess my comment was crass. I guess what annoys me about TLS is people posting negative economic or law school comments without backing it up with any facts. Even worse is when people make wild projections about the future. The only reason it gets to me is because before I knew anything about law school I googled a question and it lead me to a TLS message board. I got a bunch of conflicting information and most of it was negative. I don’t want future law students to be as confused as I was by the crap that gets passed off as “fact” on these boards.

However if I was rude then I apologize. I am probably guilty of being too positive about the future.

NYC to 190!

[drylo]

data before 05 is, IMO, worthless. The legal market has undergone tectonic shifts since then. Over the next 5-10 years it is only going to get worse. The splintering that is being felt in other fields (think journalism, media, etc.) is only going to increase in the legal field. That is probably going to lead to downward pressure on legal hiring and wages.

Seriously though, how much paint do I have to huff to see the future like you can?

Your prognostications about the future carry about as much weight as any other anonymous internet poster. In other words, they are meaningless. Please back your opinions up with facts.

People on this board that treat this as some kind of legal hearing or something can sometimes be annoying. The dude was just offering an opinion. he even qualified it with "IMO", and "probably" but no, everyone's got to be a lawyer. he didn't say you had to believe it. or read it. and if you think his post was shit, how do you think your post was more worthy of anyone's time?

give it a rest people.

The "IMO" and "probably" did not qualify the bolded statements. Further, the bolded statements are indeed wild conjecture. One difference between journalism, for instance, and law is that law is always getting more complicated as new laws, agencies, and regs come into existence. There will always be those forces that keep the legal profession going. Clients may want to cut back on legal spend, but they will still need lawyers, always more than ever.

[PDaddy]

Anyone surprised by the numbers has U.S. News on the brain. These people see anything that upsets the "order" as established by U.S. News and they think its Armageddon. All of you USNWR desciples get this through your heads: the USNWR rankings are crap, and that's why you constantly see real studies that are inconsistent with them.

U.S. News doesn't put Suffolk or Howard anywhere near the top-50, but people like me have always argued that they are top-50 schools. Educational quality and employment are what count right? Both schools are top-notch in those areas.

To be honest, I don't know if law schools can really be ranked in a meaningful way. The employment numbers are the tail wagging the dog. I tryly believe that, if USNWR suddenly ranked so-called T2 schools at or near the top, save for some schools with old reputations (top-10 plus a few others), the employment numbers would shift accordingly. We have seen evidence of this with schools like IUB.

[mst]

People on this board that treat this as some kind of legal hearing or something can sometimes be annoying....everyone's got to be a lawyer.

The "IMO" and "probably" did not qualify the bolded statements. Further, the bolded statements are indeed wild conjecture.

I think you might have missed my true point here entirely. I bet you're a riot at parties.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone surprised by the numbers has U.S. News on the brain. These people see anything that upsets the "order" as established by U.S. News and they think its Armageddon. All of you USNWR desciples get this through your heads: the USNWR rankings are crap, and that's why you constantly see real studies that are inconsistent with them.

U.S. News doesn't put Suffolk or Howard anywhere near the top-50, but people like me have always argued that they are top-50 schools. Educational quality and employment are what count right? Both schools are top-notch in those areas.

To be honest, I don't know if law schools can really be ranked in a meaningful way. The employment numbers are the tail wagging the dog. I tryly believe that, if USNWR suddenly ranked so-called T2 schools at or near the top, save for some schools with old reputations (top-10 plus a few others), the employment numbers would shift accordingly. We have seen evidence of this with schools like IUB.

Howard places well not because the students are any better than peer schools (they arguably are worse), and not because the faculty is so much better, but because firms are guaranteed a pool of predominantly black students and they too practice AA. So let's not rush to declare what is possibly a less diverse student body (and diversity is an educational attribute, no?) has better educational quality, whatever that means.

(Edit: jesus their website sucks)

[FiveSermon]

Anyone surprised by the numbers has U.S. News on the brain. These people see anything that upsets the "order" as established by U.S. News and they think its Armageddon. All of you USNWR desciples get this through your heads: the USNWR rankings are crap, and that's why you constantly see real studies that are inconsistent with them.

U.S. News doesn't put Suffolk or Howard anywhere near the top-50, but people like me have always argued that they are top-50 schools. Educational quality and employment are what count right? Both schools are top-notch in those areas.

To be honest, I don't know if law schools can really be ranked in a meaningful way. The employment numbers are the tail wagging the dog. I tryly believe that, if USNWR suddenly ranked so-called T2 schools at or near the top, save for some schools with old reputations (top-10 plus a few others), the employment numbers would shift accordingly. We have seen evidence of this with schools like IUB.

I don't know about Suffolk but it's common knowledge that Howard isn't a real TTT. Many firms go there to get their AA hires.

[mst]

(Edit: jesus their website sucks)

Somebody call 1994. It wants its website back.

[niederbomb]

(Edit: jesus their website sucks)

Somebody call 1994. It wants its website back.

UT's ASW isn't much better.

Seriously, it looks like a good day to go to Penn, Chicago, and Columbia, averaging across all 3 years. At WORST, you have a 50-50 chance of making $160,000 after graduation.

This list doesn't count regional self-selection, clerkships, public interest, and academia. Also, remember, top schools (especially Penn) admit a lot of students for "diversity" (racial and "amazing softs") purposes with low numbers, so if you're a "normal" student at one of these schools, not being at the bottom of the class is a reasonable assumption. 20% (regionalism, clerkships, public interest) + 20% (diversity admits with low numbers, bottom of the class) = 40% + 50% (NLJ 250)=90%. Pretty good odds for the top 6, I'd say.

But I'm a 0L and very possibly a future U Penn troll, so feel free to ignore me.

[FiveSermon]

(Edit: jesus their website sucks)

Somebody call 1994. It wants its website back.

UT's ASW isn't much better.

Seriously, it looks like a good day to go to Penn, Chicago, and Columbia, averaging across all 3 years.

This list doesn't count regional self-selection, clerkships, public interest, and academia. Also, remember, top schools (especially Penn) admit a lot of students for "diversity" (racial and "amazing softs") purposes with low numbers, so if you're a "normal" student at one of these schools, not being at the bottom of the class is a reasonable assumption. 20% (regionalism, clerkships, public interest) + 20% (diversity admits with low numbers, bottom of the class) = 40% + 50% (NLJ 250)=90%. Pretty good odds for the top 6, I'd say.

But I'm a 0L and very possibly a future U Penn troll, so feel free to ignore me.

Wtf? Penn doesn't admit more "diverse" class than any of the t14. It has it's racial quota which it meets but it doesn't have a holistic process. If you are looking for a school that isn't numbers focused you are looking at (excluding HYS), Berkeley and maybe Michigan with NU being in there just becuase of their work experience prerequisite.

And since when in God's name is penn considered top 6? If you try to troll for Penn at least do your research. You see Penn trolls everywhere like Veyron but at least he goes there and makes his posts somewhat contentious without riddling it with holes.

[niederbomb]

(Edit: jesus their website sucks)

Somebody call 1994. It wants its website back.

UT's ASW isn't much better.

Seriously, it looks like a good day to go to Penn, Chicago, and Columbia, averaging across all 3 years.

This list doesn't count regional self-selection, clerkships, public interest, and academia. Also, remember, top schools (especially Penn) admit a lot of students for "diversity" (racial and "amazing softs") purposes with low numbers, so if you're a "normal" student at one of these schools, not being at the bottom of the class is a reasonable assumption. 20% (regionalism, clerkships, public interest) + 20% (diversity admits with low numbers, bottom of the class) = 40% + 50% (NLJ 250)=90%. Pretty good odds for the top 6, I'd say.

But I'm a 0L and very possibly a future U Penn troll, so feel free to ignore me.

Wtf? Penn doesn't admit more "diverse" class than any of the t14. It has it's racial quota which it meets but it doesn't have a holistic process. If you are looking for a school that isn't numbers focused you are looking at (excluding HYS), Berkeley and maybe Michigan with NU being in there just becuase of their work experience prerequisite.

And since when in God's name is penn considered top 6? If you try to troll for Penn at least do your research. You see Penn trolls everywhere like Veyron but at least he goes there and makes his posts somewhat contentious without riddling it with holes.

Well, according to the numbers cited at the beginning of the thread, the "top 4" in NLJ 250 placement were Chicago, Cornell, Columbia, and Penn. The top 6 obviously includes Penn. Sorry, I should have clarified: I wasn't talking about U.S. News.

At 33%, Penn does seem to have more minorities than many other top law schools (Michigan 27%, UVA 21%, UC Berkeley 31%, U of C 24%). But that wasn't the point. My point was that AA at EVERY school gives a class rankings advantage to whose were not beneficiaries of it. Thus, having a 50% (or in Cornell's case, almost a 60%) Big Law placement is not as frightening as it might seem.

[FiveSermon]

Well, according to the numbers cited at the beginning of the thread, the "top 4" in NLJ 250 placement were Chicago, Cornell, Columbia, and Penn. The top 6 obviously includes Penn. Sorry, I should have clarified: I wasn't talking about U.S. News.

At 33%, Penn does seem to have more minorities than many other top law schools (Michigan 27%, UVA 21%, UC Berkeley 31%, U of C 24%). But that wasn't the point. My point was that AA at EVERY school gives a class rankings advantage to whose were not beneficiaries of it. Thus, having a 50% (or in Cornell's case, almost a 60%) Big Law placement is not as frightening as it might seem.

You realize that firms have minority quotas also? That black guy who graduates below median at Penn has a very distinct advantage when he goes to interview for firms compared to the white guy. He brings "diversity". Firms need AA hires. Maybe not as much as schools do but they need them nevertheless.

Edit: Also have you factored out Asian Americans and from your minority percentages? It's a fact that Asians do not get a boost.

[ksimon2007]

Well, according to the numbers cited at the beginning of the thread, the "top 4" in NLJ 250 placement were Chicago, Cornell, Columbia, and Penn. The top 6 obviously includes Penn. Sorry, I should have clarified: I wasn't talking about U.S. News.

At 33%, Penn does seem to have more minorities than many other top law schools (Michigan 27%, UVA 21%, UC Berkeley 31%, U of C 24%). But that wasn't the point. My point was that AA at EVERY school gives a class rankings advantage to whose were not beneficiaries of it. Thus, having a 50% (or in Cornell's case, almost a 60%) Big Law placement is not as frightening as it might seem.

You realize that firms have minority quotas also? That black guy who graduates below median at Penn has a very distinct advantage when he goes to interview for firms compared to the white guy. He brings "diversity". Firms need AA hires. Maybe not as much as schools do but they need them nevertheless.

Please do me a favor and make this thread more bearable, and on topic, by going elsewhere to have the AA debate.

[FiveSermon]

Well, according to the numbers cited at the beginning of the thread, the "top 4" in NLJ 250 placement were Chicago, Cornell, Columbia, and Penn. The top 6 obviously includes Penn. Sorry, I should have clarified: I wasn't talking about U.S. News.

At 33%, Penn does seem to have more minorities than many other top law schools (Michigan 27%, UVA 21%, UC Berkeley 31%, U of C 24%). But that wasn't the point. My point was that AA at EVERY school gives a class rankings advantage to whose were not beneficiaries of it. Thus, having a 50% (or in Cornell's case, almost a 60%) Big Law placement is not as frightening as it might seem.

You realize that firms have minority quotas also? That black guy who graduates below median at Penn has a very distinct advantage when he goes to interview for firms compared to the white guy. He brings "diversity". Firms need AA hires. Maybe not as much as schools do but they need them nevertheless.

Please do me a favor and make this thread more bearable, and on topic, by going elsewhere to have the AA debate.

I would also like to avoid it. I guess I shouldn't have bitten when he started with the whole "Penn has more minorities so it's easier for white people to do better" bait.

[mst]

Well, according to the numbers cited at the beginning of the thread, the "top 4" in NLJ 250 placement were Chicago, Cornell, Columbia, and Penn. The top 6 obviously includes Penn. Sorry, I should have clarified: I wasn't talking about U.S. News.

Bahahahaha. Seriously, man? By that definition Cornell is top 6 and Yale isn't. I sincerely don't hope this is a flame. Look, Penn is a great school and all, and hell, some might argue it's as good a school as Columbia or Chicago or NYU. But if they do, using NLJ250 rankings as some version of clear cut rankings is not the way to go. It's way too simplistic and stupid.

[BCLS]

Nowhere is it agreed that Suffolk is a T-50 school lol. TTTT with awful placement.

[drylo]

People on this board that treat this as some kind of legal hearing or something can sometimes be annoying....everyone's got to be a lawyer.

The "IMO" and "probably" did not qualify the bolded statements. Further, the bolded statements are indeed wild conjecture.

I think you might have missed my true point here entirely. I bet you're a riot at parties.

OK...? 0L fail. I was standing up for the poster that you reamed for no reason. You're not worth wasting my (virtual) breath.