Top Law Schools

Would it be better to go to a highly ranked law school and graduate in the bottom 25% of the class or to go to a lower ranked school and graduate in the top 25% of the class? Just to give an example, let's say we're talking about a school in the high teens (like UCLA) vs a school in the high 50s (like Tennessee). And just assume that the person is willing to live and work in the area, the job markets are equal, etc. I'm not trying to say that people that go to lower ranked schools aren't as smart, but I'm guessing that the people at the higher ranked schools are pretty intense about getting good grades and what not.

nipplehead09 wrote:Would it be better to go to a highly ranked law school and graduate in the bottom 25% of the class or to go to a lower ranked school and graduate in the top 25% of the class? Just to give an example, let's say we're talking about a school in the high teens (like UCLA) vs a school in the high 50s (like Tennessee). And just assume that the person is willing to live and work in the area, the job markets are equal, etc. I'm not trying to say that people that go to lower ranked schools aren't as smart, but I'm guessing that the people at the higher ranked schools are pretty intense about getting good grades and what not.

You can't make that assumption, for a number of reasons.

Let's just assume that this is what's going to happen. For a number of reasons. Also, do you play fantasy baseball?

nipplehead09 wrote:Let's just assume that this is what's going to happen. For a number of reasons. Also, do you play fantasy baseball?

Personally, i'd rather be top 25% at Tennessee than bottom 25% at UCLA, especially if I got scholarship money from Tennessee.

Top 25% at T1. But that's not how it'd work out.

.

mistergoft wrote:top 25% at a T1 and bottom 25% at a school in the teens are both going to have to get a job through networking or being a really excellent interviewer. There's really no difference. Maybe the school with the larger alumni network?

Good resume might work too.

how abt top 10% from a lower T2 school or solid T3 school, say chapman or indianapolis?

r.

mistergoft wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

mistergoft wrote:top 25% at a T1 and bottom 25% at a school in the teens are both going to have to get a job through networking or being a really excellent interviewer. There's really no difference. Maybe the school with the larger alumni network?

Good resume might work too.

I was assuming the person with a good resume would have enough sense to give up on law and go back to their previous career.

My previous careers have been at an amusement park, a Chuck E Cheese's, and an AMC. Nothing I'm in a hurry to return to lol.

nipplehead09 wrote:Would it be better to go to a highly ranked law school and graduate in the bottom 25% of the class or to go to a lower ranked school and graduate in the top 25% of the class? ....

This has been studied and there is good reason to believe it is better to go to the lower ranked school and graduate toward the top of the class (assuming the gap between the schools isn't too huge).

Here's the study: --LinkRemoved--#

Here's a nugget (p. 35): "A graduate from 40th ranked George Mason with high law school grades is likely to earn as much as an average graduate from Stanford." The reason is that law school performance is a stronger predictor of career success than school prestige/rank.

A key question, then, is whether the "average" graduate from Stanford could/would have gotten "high law school grades" at George Mason. The answer is maybe; the authors discuss the evidence that people do tend to get better grades at lower-ranked schools than they would at higher-ranked schools.

top 25% at 50 is much better than bottom 25% at top 20. however, this is a big difference and hard to predict as others said. remember the difference between those schools is about 5 LSAT points, which in that range is about 5 questions.

Why is this even a question there are too many poor assumptions

If you believe that LSAT score and GPA combined are heavily correlated to success in law school, it would seem to follow that a student would generally preform better at the school in the 50s all other things being equal.

There are over 9000 threads like this one and each one sucks.

Voltaire wrote:If you believe that LSAT score and GPA combined are heavily correlated to success in law school, it would seem to follow that a student would generally preform better at the school in the 50s all other things being equal.

Oh no. Please not this again. Please!!!!!!!!!!! This never ends well and it is NOT fun to watch.

Voltaire wrote:If you believe that LSAT score and GPA combined are heavily correlated to success in law school, it would seem to follow that a student would generally preform better at the school in the 50s all other things being equal.

The correlation is known, but it's not high. It's just above the cut off from low to moderately correlated. But going from bottom to top with only a couple LSAT point difference would not happen under the known correlation. This isn't even a debate.

voice of reason wrote:

nipplehead09 wrote:Would it be better to go to a highly ranked law school and graduate in the bottom 25% of the class or to go to a lower ranked school and graduate in the top 25% of the class? ....

This has been studied and there is good reason to believe it is better to go to the lower ranked school and graduate toward the top of the class (assuming the gap between the schools isn't too huge).

Here's the study: --LinkRemoved--#

Here's a nugget (p. 35): "A graduate from 40th ranked George Mason with high law school grades is likely to earn as much as an average graduate from Stanford." The reason is that law school performance is a stronger predictor of career success than school prestige/rank.

A key question, then, is whether the "average" graduate from Stanford could/would have gotten "high law school grades" at George Mason. The answer is maybe; the authors discuss the evidence that people do tend to get better grades at lower-ranked schools than they would at higher-ranked schools.

Very enjoyable read, thanks for the link.

rad law wrote:There are over 9000 threads like this one and each one sucks.

This.

My guess is to be in the top 25% at a top school. Then, you can't go wrong

If measure U and measure V are correlated with a coefficient of A (where A is [0.0, 1.0]), then doing 1 standard deviation better than someone else on measure U will tend to imply on average doing A * 1 standard deviations better on measure V. If class rank follows a Gaussian distribution, then a 170 will tend to do 0.6 * 0.34 = 0.20 better than a 160. So if a 160 got median, then a 170 would get top 30%. Now this math is highly simplified (I totally ignored the actual distribution of LSATs at a typical school which is non-Gaussian) but it should illustrate the simple fact that the difference is smaller than your hypo suggests.

rayiner wrote:If measure U and measure V are correlated with a coefficient of A (where A is [0.0, 1.0]), then doing 1 standard deviation better than someone else on measure U will tend to imply on average doing A * 1 standard deviations better on measure V. If class rank follows a Gaussian distribution, then a 170 will tend to do 0.6 * 0.34 = 0.20 better than a 160. So if a 160 got median, then a 170 would get top 30%. Now this math is highly simplified (I totally ignored the actual distribution of LSATs at a typical school which is non-Gaussian) but it should illustrate the simple fact that the difference is smaller than your hypo suggests.

TKO

Desert Fox wrote:

Voltaire wrote:If you believe that LSAT score and GPA combined are heavily correlated to success in law school, it would seem to follow that a student would generally preform better at the school in the 50s all other things being equal.

The correlation is known, but it's not high. It's just above the cut off from low to moderately correlated. But going from bottom to top with only a couple LSAT point difference would not happen under the known correlation. This isn't even a debate.

This. The average student at a T10 would probably perform a little better at a T20, but it wouldn't be a 50%ile difference. The kid with the 173 in the bottom quarter at MVP wouldn't magically become top 25% at a T20. Or even a T50. I agree with DF, this isn't debatable and it is a dead horse.

Desert Fox wrote:

Voltaire wrote:If you believe that LSAT score and GPA combined are heavily correlated to success in law school, it would seem to follow that a student would generally preform better at the school in the 50s all other things being equal.

The correlation is known, but it's not high. It's just above the cut off from low to moderately correlated. But going from bottom to top with only a couple LSAT point difference would not happen under the known correlation. This isn't even a debate.

Gotcha. I'm half-drunk and was just playing devil's advocate. I can see you guys have had this discussion before though. Nevamind.

.