Top Law Schools

This was an interesting article. Not Earth shattering, but worth a read if you need to waste a minute.

http://www-source.abajournal.com/news/a ... lower-tier

Guy basically says 50-30ranked law school grads outperform t14 in Biglaw. He mixes collected data and anecdotal inferences to argue his thesis.

Eh. Hard to really make any meaningful conclusions based on these stats.

I mean, my school (Hastings), has 2-3x more grads every year than Berkeley and Stanford, so I'd hope that would lead to a higher raw number of partners in the Bay.

Anonymous User wrote:Eh. Hard to really make any meaningful conclusions based on these stats.

I mean, my school (Hastings), has 2-3x more grads every year than Berkeley and Stanford, so I'd hope that would lead to a higher raw number of partners in the Bay.

RC fail. The article discusses rates per hire. Not raw numbers.

bceagles182 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Eh. Hard to really make any meaningful conclusions based on these stats.

I mean, my school (Hastings), has 2-3x more grads every year than Berkeley and Stanford, so I'd hope that would lead to a higher raw number of partners in the Bay.

RC fail. The article discusses rates per hire. Not raw numbers.

Rates per HIRE not rates per CLASS SIZE

Considering it's impossible to become a partner unless you can get a biglaw jerb first, if HYS gives you a 90% chance of biglaw, while TTT gives you a 5% chance, it's silly to compare chances of becoming a partner AFTER being hired.

johansantana21 wrote:

bceagles182 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Eh. Hard to really make any meaningful conclusions based on these stats.

I mean, my school (Hastings), has 2-3x more grads every year than Berkeley and Stanford, so I'd hope that would lead to a higher raw number of partners in the Bay.

RC fail. The article discusses rates per hire. Not raw numbers.

Rates per HIRE not rates per CLASS SIZE

Considering it's impossible to become a partner unless you can get a biglaw jerb first, if HYS gives you a 90% chance of biglaw, while TTT gives you a 5% chance, it's silly to compare chances of becoming a partner AFTER being hired.

Why is it silly? It's clearly a stupid reason to go to, say, Hastings over Harvard, but it's still an interesting thing to know if Hastings grads who make it to BigLaw are likely to be more successful there.

Knowing a couple people who will be working in BigLaw from lower T1 schools, and knowing a ton of people who will be working in BigLaw from NYU, I would not be surprised if the former are more successful. They're certainly no dumber than the NYU people and they are definitely harder-working.

You can make a plausible argument that top 2% of a TT wants it more than median at a T14. They are probably going to do whatever that's necessary to ensure longevity at there jobs because of lack of exit options.

Grinders gon keep on grindin.

This article was posted a month ago (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=180016), but I'll let this one live since it's already garnered more responses anyways.

Makes sense, exit options are probably way more available to people from top schools than those with a mediocre schools on their resumes. Especially in the business world, people care more about the name recognition of your school than your grades at the institution.

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

johansantana21 wrote:

bceagles182 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Eh. Hard to really make any meaningful conclusions based on these stats.

I mean, my school (Hastings), has 2-3x more grads every year than Berkeley and Stanford, so I'd hope that would lead to a higher raw number of partners in the Bay.

RC fail. The article discusses rates per hire. Not raw numbers.

Rates per HIRE not rates per CLASS SIZE

Considering it's impossible to become a partner unless you can get a biglaw jerb first, if HYS gives you a 90% chance of biglaw, while TTT gives you a 5% chance, it's silly to compare chances of becoming a partner AFTER being hired.

Why is it silly? It's clearly a stupid reason to go to, say, Hastings over Harvard, but it's still an interesting thing to know if Hastings grads who make it to BigLaw are likely to be more successful there.

Knowing a couple people who will be working in BigLaw from lower T1 schools, and knowing a ton of people who will be working in BigLaw from NYU, I would not be surprised if the former are more successful. They're certainly no dumber than the NYU people and they are definitely harder-working.

Since there's like 5 people every decade that make it to biglaw from a TTT like Hastings -- if one of these TTT grads make it to partner that means like 20% chance of making partner from Hastings? No.

Schools like Columbia places around a hundred people into biglaw. If only 5 out of the 100 become partner, that still doesn't mean being a Columbia grad hurt you in becoming a partner.

johansantana21 wrote:Since there's like 5 people every decade that make it to biglaw from a TTT like Hastings -- if one of these TTT grads make it to partner that means like 20% chance of making partner from Hastings? No.

Schools like Columbia places around a hundred people into biglaw. If only 5 out of the 100 become partner, that still doesn't mean being a Columbia grad hurt you in becoming a partner.

That's not the point of the article. The article doesn't care how likely it is to make partner from low ranked schools. The point of the article is that for some reason, biglaw associates from low ranked schools are much more likely to make partner than biglaw associates from T14's. And the kicker is we don't have a good reason why (or at least we don't know which of the plausible reasons is the right one).

johansantana21 wrote:Since there's like 5 people every decade that make it to biglaw from a TTT like Hastings

lol c'mon

As a TT going to BigLaw, I'm happy to hear partnership is possible. I'll say that the likely reasons for this are: (1) top school grads have a better shot at prestigious exit options (prof; high level DOJ; etc.) which cause higher attrition; and (2) to get in to BigLaw from a TT, you need to be a grinder and/or a hustler---qualities that help attorneys succeed in the long run. My buddies who went to top schools, got median grades, and landed at the same BigLaw firm are much less interested in doing whatever it takes to hold on to the job. I think that's partly because they know they can always land something else, and partly because they didn't have to grind to get the job in the first place, so they aren't used to it.

BarcaCrossesTheAlps wrote:Guy basically says 50-30ranked law school grads outperform t14 in Biglaw.

He doesn't say that. There's a big difference between "outperform" and "stick around longer."

To answer the question you posed in the title: the data doesn't tell us anything about chances at partner. Drawing that inference from this data is a lot like comparing biglaw hiring rates as a percentage of class size and concluding that GULC students perform better than Yale students at OCI (I'm looking at you, "Go-to Law School" Rankings). Just as there are more HYS students that self-select into Art III clerkships, there are probably more HYS/T14 students self-selecting into desirable exit options rather than grinding out another 6-7 years for a shot at partner.

Id bet that the average hard working, down to earth, T50 grad has better interpersonal skills than the average T14 dork. might be a contributing factor....

bk187 wrote:

johansantana21 wrote:Since there's like 5 people every decade that make it to biglaw from a TTT like Hastings -- if one of these TTT grads make it to partner that means like 20% chance of making partner from Hastings? No.

Schools like Columbia places around a hundred people into biglaw. If only 5 out of the 100 become partner, that still doesn't mean being a Columbia grad hurt you in becoming a partner.

That's not the point of the article. The article doesn't care how likely it is to make partner from low ranked schools. The point of the article is that for some reason, biglaw associates from low ranked schools are much more likely to make partner than biglaw associates from T14's. And the kicker is we don't have a good reason why (or at least we don't know which of the plausible reasons is the right one).

Yeah, this is what I got from it. Sorry for double post; I did not notice the other thread...

What I would like to have hard numbers on is whether these TT, TTT, TTTT partners made it into biglaw from contacts in the first place. Not normal contacts through networking, etc, but from nepotism, etc. In any case it is nice to see.

I also have my theory, which some of you share... These people from lower schools have a major chip on their shoulder. They probably always wanted big law and the big pay and dignitas that comes with that type of work. It is almost certain they will work less motivated people under the table! Beware the man/woman with motivation based on the desire for social recognition more than mere money. These people want to be seen as "somebody"..... or they just like biglaw and I'm waaaay over thinking it. In any event, the article makes for good water cooler convo.

concurrent fork wrote:He doesn't say that. There's a big difference between "outperform" and "stick around longer."

To answer the question you posed in the title: the data doesn't tell us anything about chances at partner. Drawing that inference from this data is a lot like comparing biglaw hiring rates as a percentage of class size and concluding that GULC students perform better than Yale students at OCI (I'm looking at you, "Go-to Law School" Rankings). Just as there are more HYS students that self-select into Art III clerkships, there are probably more HYS/T14 students self-selecting into desirable exit options rather than grinding out another 6-7 years for a shot at partner.

That's an optimistic way to look at it. The guy who the article is based on disagrees.

Bill Henderson wrote:5. "A Better Plan B." I know a lot of people in the law world will cling to the notion that elite law school graduates are running government agencies, leaving the law for Wall Street, and generally living very charmed lives. I am sure there is something to this theory. But I doubt it is carrying the load on the BigLaw associate/partner attrition puzzle.

Source: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ition.html

concurrent fork wrote:

BarcaCrossesTheAlps wrote:Guy basically says 50-30ranked law school grads outperform t14 in Biglaw.

He doesn't say that. There's a big difference between "outperform" and "stick around longer."

To answer the question you posed in the title: the data doesn't tell us anything about chances at partner. Drawing that inference from this data is a lot like comparing biglaw hiring rates as a percentage of class size and concluding that GULC students perform better than Yale students at OCI (I'm looking at you, "Go-to Law School" Rankings). Just as there are more HYS students that self-select into Art III clerkships, there are probably more HYS/T14 students self-selecting into desirable exit options rather than grinding out another 6-7 years for a shot at partner.

Thanks...... sometimes people like myself just need a swift kick to rear. What could I have been thinking?

bk187 wrote:

Bill Henderson wrote:5. "A Better Plan B." I know a lot of people in the law world will cling to the notion that elite law school graduates are running government agencies, leaving the law for Wall Street, and generally living very charmed lives. I am sure there is something to this theory. But I doubt it is carrying the load on the BigLaw associate/partner attrition puzzle.

Source: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ition.html

Ha! The people leaving comments in the link are having the same conversation we are....

bk187 wrote:

concurrent fork wrote:He doesn't say that. There's a big difference between "outperform" and "stick around longer."

To answer the question you posed in the title: the data doesn't tell us anything about chances at partner. Drawing that inference from this data is a lot like comparing biglaw hiring rates as a percentage of class size and concluding that GULC students perform better than Yale students at OCI (I'm looking at you, "Go-to Law School" Rankings). Just as there are more HYS students that self-select into Art III clerkships, there are probably more HYS/T14 students self-selecting into desirable exit options rather than grinding out another 6-7 years for a shot at partner.

That's an optimistic way to look at it. The guy who the article is based on disagrees.

Bill Henderson wrote:5. "A Better Plan B." I know a lot of people in the law world will cling to the notion that elite law school graduates are running government agencies, leaving the law for Wall Street, and generally living very charmed lives. I am sure there is something to this theory. But I doubt it is carrying the load on the BigLaw associate/partner attrition puzzle.

Source: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalw ... ition.html

Well, his theory #2 would support my interpretation (higher attrition rates for higher-ranked firms). Although based on his comments in #5 he apparently doubts that these are "desirable" exit options.

concurrent fork wrote:Well, his theory #2 would support my interpretation (higher attrition rates for higher-ranked firms). Although based on his comments in #5 he apparently doubts that these are "desirable" exit options.

I think his general point is that we just don't know. It's plausible that they are going on to bigger/better but it's also possible they're going to smaller/worse. It's not really fair to say that they are probably getting good outcomes because there's no basis for such optimism.

InGoodFaith wrote:

johansantana21 wrote:Since there's like 5 people every decade that make it to biglaw from a TTT like Hastings

lol c'mon

johan continues to become a bigger asshole, as well as stupider. A dangerous combo.

Interesting article, OP.

bk187 wrote:

concurrent fork wrote:Well, his theory #2 would support my interpretation (higher attrition rates for higher-ranked firms). Although based on his comments in #5 he apparently doubts that these are "desirable" exit options.

I think his general point is that we just don't know. It's plausible that they are going on to bigger/better but it's also possible they're going to smaller/worse. It's not really fair to say that they are probably getting good outcomes because there's no basis for such optimism.

Right -- I'm not necessarily arguing that T14 grads self-select out at a higher rate due to exit options. But, since it's a possible factor that hasn't been controlled for (along with other factors not related to job performance), my initial point was that this data doesn't tell us whether lower tier grads are "better" at making partner. So I think we agree.

As someone from a TT going to big law it makes perfect sense to me. Two of my friends who transferred to Harvard made it clear that they work alot less hard than they would have if they stayed at my TT. Both were on LR, MC, and had a judicial internship for the fall semester, once they transferred all they had was classes, which arent graded and already landed biglaw. At a TT there is extreme pressure to be at the top of the class, and it takes someone who works endless hours while having an externship during the year, being on LR and on MC. I believe it just makes you a harder worker. Obviously this doesnt mean go to a TT, i wish i went to harvard as well lol.

romothesavior wrote:

InGoodFaith wrote:

johansantana21 wrote:Since there's like 5 people every decade that make it to biglaw from a TTT like Hastings

lol c'mon

johan continues to become a bigger asshole, as well as stupider. A dangerous combo.

Interesting article, OP.

At least I don't have to live out my best years in the shithole that is the midwest.