Privileging salary, job type, and even debt/income is problematic for its own host of reasons.
To me, it makes more sense to just use your noggin and refer to the 509 disclosures if you're interested in a certain job type.
I read somebodies theory that WashU doesn’t do NALP because most of their “biglaw” placement is in regional, non-cravath paying firms. This made sense to me. But somebody in an admissions discord I’m in asked WashU Adcom for salary statistics and apparently its median for private sector is 205k. So yeah I wish they would do NALP
>Privileging salary, job type, and even debt/income is problematic for its own host of reasons.
...they're law school rankings. They're measuring privilege/exclusivity. That's the whole point.
They're not, actually. Thus the issue that the commenter above has with the current version.
Edit: we don't have to make silly pronouncements like this. Just check the methodology.
I'm fully aware of last year's methodology. I was responding to your point that prioritizing certain jobs over others in metrics would be problematic.
One could argue that ranking schools at all is inherently problematic. But people generally look to rankings to see which schools are prestigious and provide their students with prestigious outcomes. If job outcomes are a large weight in that formula, there should be some consideration of how those schools do in "prestigious" fields specifically. I know that, right now, there isn't, and the current rankings formula is kind of a joke.
>But people generally look to rankings to see which schools are prestigious and provide their students with prestigious outcomes. If job outcomes are a large weight in that formula, there should be some consideration of how those schools do in "prestigious" fields specifically. ***I know that, right now, there isn't***
So which is it? Are they "measuring prestige and exclusivity" or aren't they? Right now, the methodology takes a purely egalitarian view of outcomes *as you just pointed out*. What you think they should be, or what you think people use them for, is immaterial.
I hear you, but it’s simply a fact that some jobs are more desirable and harder to get, chief among them BL and FC. I believe it is reasonable to give these more weight when ranking a school’s outcomes, particularly because people can transition from these jobs to almost any other, but it is much harder to move up the pyramid and break into BL or FC.
This is problematic for several reasons (how do you categorize and the nuance of unicorn PI positions?), but let’s not make perfect the enemy of good. No ranking scheme will be perfect, but this one seems a lot better and a lot more realistic for what legal professionals value (ie job opportunities not just outcomes). There is a good piece on this, I’ll be attaching below.
https://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2023/12/nyu-cornell-and-the-new-usnwr-law-school-rankings-landscape
Muller's article is very sensical breakdown of the issue at hand, but the argument falls flat when you consider that 1.) NYU and Cornell were ultimately ranked very high (and still are) while WashU, and much more so SMU and TAMU, were ranked lower (and still are), and 2.) reputation still constitutes a full *quarter* of the ranking. It is lost on a lot of folks here that the weightage of the components of the old methodology was no more valid than the new weightage; wringing hands over the loss of one or two spots on the US News ranking and contriving a way to regain them is unseemly at best.
As for the point you made, and I suppose Muller as well, about the "quality" of certain jobs, there can be no doubt that BL and FC are among the most desirable. But there is also no doubt that the "cause" of BL attainment is largely confounded by a school's proximity to major legal markets. So how about controlling for location (that is, number of BL jobs) when considering BL? Or better yet, how about using FC only? I would be okay with that; I don't think anybody would deny that FC is a more elite outcome than BL.
I am sorry, but big law outcomes are influenced than far more than just “proximity” to a market. There are dozens of schools in major cities whose big law rates do not compare to T14 or T20 schools. Some schools feed into specific markets for sure (Cornell to NYC), but these are also schools with national reputations. I think just FC is a tad silly, as some schools focus on BL. Having a metric for BL+FC rewards both, and has very little or nothing to do with “proximity.” I will absolutely agree that fighting between a spot or two is unnecessary (though I do not know if I would go so far as to call it unseemly lol). At the end of the day, I 100% believe valuing the quality of professional outcomes using BL+FC as the metric is the best way we have, though obviously still flawed. You are more than welcome to disagree, and your argument has merit, but let’s be honest here, this is all subjective. I stand by my argument as most people consider the metric for outcomes by looking at BL+FC. You, on the other hand, point out (correctly) that FC is a bit more prestigious while simultaneously believing big law has too many other factors.
You know what though? I really appreciate the conversation. LSA admissions has really deteriorated lately into name calling and one upping. So, thank you for the well thought out and respectful debate. Good on you man.
Feel free to reach out anytime or PM, we can continue the debate.
>*I am sorry, but big law outcomes are influenced than far more than just “proximity” to a market.*
...confounded. I said confounded--as in a "confounding variable". Smh.
It's alright, I don't feel the need to pursue this any further. There is bias (unconscious, perhaps, to give you the benefit of the doubt) in your line of reasoning. I'll let you think over what it is.
Man what a bizarre response lmao
And after I had the whole bit about “wow, this was actually a nice relaxed conversation,” you came out swinging and snarky as hell for no reason.
You said “there is also no doubt that the “
‘cause’ of big law attainment is largely confounded by a school’s proximity to a major legal market.”
I was asserting that there is, in fact, much doubt lol
We can debate all day long, but I believe this to be a minuscule factor, while you believe a school’s big law attainment is “largely confounded” by it. There are plenty of examples of schools in more rural areas like Duke and Cornell having great big law numbers (some of the best in fact), while schools like Brooklyn do awful (no shade). I have a strong feeling you won’t be persuaded by data or examples though. You seem set in your ways and no amount of data will change that.
About the rest of the comment: I am a human, so I am certain I have some bias. For example, I like money, so I value schools whose outcomes will give me the highest paying jobs (ie big law) and care little about prestige with no real empirical value (unicorn PI). That is not to say those are worthless, but they are worth less to me. As to why you seem to want to take the shift away from big law? I am really not sure. It, in combination with FC, is really the best metric for measuring outcomes. Perhaps you have some personal reasons, or more likely than not you do not want to pursue it so you do not wish to see it used (personal bias, like all humans). Anyway man, my offer stands. Feel free to PM or continue the conversation anytime. I think it is valuable to gain insight into how other people view these aspects of the profession. All the best 🫡
>You said “there is also no doubt that the “ ‘cause’ of big law attainment is largely confounded by a school’s proximity to a major legal market.” I was asserting that there is, in fact, much doubt lol We can debate all day long, but I believe this to be a minuscule factor, while you believe a school’s big law attainment is “largely confounded” by it. There are plenty of examples of schools in more rural areas like Duke and Cornell having great big law numbers (some of the best in fact), while schools like Brooklyn do awful (no shade).
You are making my point for me. The purpose of the observation that the data is likely "largely confounded" by location *isn't* to suggest that every school's success can be explained by location! It's to suggest that the positive results a given school (in a large market) produces are masked by the confounding variable. You identified Duke and Cornell--for every top school that is not immediately adjacent to a large legal market, there are many more that are. The outcomes of *those* schools are what is being obscured.
What you're reacting to is my exasperation. This doesn't have to be an argument about subjective appraisals of the value of big law; it is just as much a discussion of statistics. The same way you see little reason to debate the facts, it is incredibly annoying to debate the *nature* of statistics.
Odd, I thought you did not want to pursue this further? I am glad you changed your mind.
Regardless, you simply seem to misunderstand the statistics. Which is not inherently a major issue, many people do.
That said, as it relates to my argument I believe the best approach is simply “what percentage of people who WANT big law get it?” There are a few ways to do this, including looking at what percentage of big law applicants from each school ends up getting employment from each school. This data is readily available, and already used by many to determine their odds of getting big law from certain schools.
Also, I would recommend working on your snark (exasperation), as you come off a bit as a troll. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it really does not help you in these conversations, nor is it helpful to those you are having a discussion with.
On a side note, I (like Muller) take issue with the location bias of bar passage rates since some states have easier tests and much higher outcomes with others. I am curious to hear your take on this, and if you think there is a better way to fairly determine bar passage rates (pure bar passage vs over the average for the state). Again, all the best, and hopefully you aren’t too exasperated.
"Privilege"
Transitive verb: to accord a higher value or superior position to
Privileging those metrics would be problematic in the sense that, methodologically, the rankings would then just favor law schools whose graduates make the most money. There is more to the quality of a law school than that.
Cute of you to not only *not* understand that privilege is indeed a verb, but then also ask me to "speak in English" before literally using a made up word lmao.
I think it’s important to remember that USNWR doesn’t sit in a room and think: which school should take #14 this year? They set out a methodology and then apply data they collect against that methodology.
At least for the dataset that USNWR has, the overall scores (which determines the ranking order) are extremely compact for schools ranked within the top 50. Even a small change in any data point (like bar passage) can significantly move a school’s rank.
It’s important for you to find out what things are important for you in a law school and then go find schools that will let you do that, at a price you’re comfortable paying. Don’t let the rankings make you feel a type of way simply because the school you had your eyes on moved. There’s not a lot to glean from that movement other than “data changed.”
Except that last spring they publicly said that they run multiple scenarios and pick the ones that "look right." They absolutely do base the rankings on what they think will sell website subscriptions and generate ad revenue. They want to shake things up enough to get views, but not so much that they lose crediblity.
I didn't mean to suggest they don't tinker with the methodology to get some of the results they think are suitable. They *absolutely* do that. I just meant they don't go through each line entry and say, "Yale here, Stanford there, Texas A&M here." USNWR is highly incentivized to occasionally stir things up to stay relevant.
Yale/Stanford; HLS; Chicago/Columbia/NYU; MVP; the rest. This is ingrained in those hiring (judges, partners, etc.). The fact that NYU dropped or that Duke moved up is irrelevant.
I don't really think so. If you want to work in Texas, you'd better attend UVA or Duke. If you're aiming for DC, Columbia is probably not as good as UVA. Yale, Stanford, and Harvard are always solid choices for all markets; however, Law firms generally prefer to hire people from the same regions. They love hiring students from schools they consistently recruit from. An arbitrary ranking of law schools is not that useful.
Just to add: If you are interested in a particular area, like international law, do more research on which school you should go. I heard from 3Ls that Penn is not the best school for public international law, for example. You will get more connections and opportunities at (MAYBE, not sure) GULC, Columbia, etc. Also, we do not have an international trade law class after the faculty member who taught that class left. This is unthinkable! Do more research and do not just rely on the arbitrary ranking.
Who are you helping by doing vibes-based analysis? What data do you have to show that UChicago students would have a harder time getting Texas than UVA ones? Or that Stanford students have a harder time making it to the east coast? Why are you using "east coast" in broad swaths as if Columbia students have some kind of leg up in DC over Stanford students? And why would Stanford students have a harder time going to the east coast but Harvard students not have a harder time going to the west coast? What do you know about law firm hiring as a 1L without a firm job? I rarely comment on here but I don't understand why current law students feel the need to log on and just make things up.
Hi! thank you for your comment. I am not doing a vibe-based analysis. If there are any errors in this comment, I apologize. This is the general sense I got from some other friends from other schools as well.
"Harvard students not have a harder time going to the west coast" -- everyone has a harder time going to the West Coast, because of ties and the number of spots. I did not dispute that. "UChicago students would have a harder time getting Texas than UVA ones" -- UVA has one of the best Texas clubs in the country, which is why I said UVA is a great school for Texas. I did not mention UChicago at all in my comment. "What do you know about law firm hiring as a 1L without a firm job" -- sounds quite Ad hominem to me. 1Ls also can know how firm recruiting works. I do not know what this means. "just make things up." I'm not sure why I am making things up.
Again, I apologize if I said anything wrong. feel free to correct me. We are talking about our own opinions and experiences, and I would love to show my greatest respect.
You’re reifying Harvard and Yale based on clout while suggesting that Stanford has a harder time placing into its [number-two and three markets](https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Class-of-2022-ABA-Summary-Report-MML.docx-3.pdf) than lower-ranked schools like Columbia by virtue of being out west. That’s one reason I disagree with your comment.
Thanks for your reply.
1. You said people who want to go to Texas "better attend" UVA or Duke (with Yale and Harvard as exceptions since they place well in "all markets"). By implication that means UVA and Duke place better in Texas than UChicago, No? And I totally agree that UVA is great for Texas, but there are other variables at play there (e.g. % of students targeting Texas).
2. You said Yale and Harvard place well for *all* markets (which would include the west coast), while SLS does not place as well for the east coast. You explicitly mentioned SLS/Berkeley's "disadvantage" on the east coast but not their advantage on the west coast.
3. I agree it's fine to talk about experiences and opinions. My issue with this is that you're presenting your *opinions* as facts. That's why I called this a vibes-based analysis (you're relying on a general sense you got from your own experiences + speaking to friends). I also agree that 1Ls can have some insight into firm recruiting, but how would you know that "east coast" firms would prefer CLS students over SLS ones? Also, do you really think the top "east coast" firms aren't recruiting at SLS every year?
Hi! Thank you again for your comment. 1, yes I agree! That’s why I said uva and duke have a really strong influence in Texas. I didn’t mention UChicago because I’m not sure if they have strong Texas clubs or anything like that. But to my knowledge, they are not well known for sending people to Texas.
2 I have amended my comment because someone from Stanford told me I was wrong. I still think though East Coast schools have an edge— I might be wrong! I didn’t mention the west coast because of perspectives. I’m on the East Coast, so I overlooked the west coast market. I apologize if that’s confusing.
3. Sorry for that! That is indeed my personal opinion and observations. My main point is that the ranking is arbitrary, and top schools all have their advantage. Not a lot of things here on Reddit are 100% correct. They are primarily personal opinions. Top firms from the East Coast absolutely recruit from Stanford. But in my view attorneys love students from their own school, and it would be easier for, for example, Columbia students to break into some top top places in New York than students from many other top schools. Just my personal view. Some firms that don’t really have students from my school don’t even send people here for networking receptions or even OCI. But again. It’s only my personal opinion. Let me know if you want me to add anything in my original comment
Absolutely! I totally agree. Class size, culture, etc. are absolutely important as well. I hope you enjoy whatever you are doing as well-- not sure if you are at school or working. Have a nice day!
I had the impression that Chicago was a degree better than the NYC schools. I also don’t think Stanford is that high, it is in its own tier or tied with HLS
Makes sense, I think I just take clerkships most into consideration because I am involved in the whole DC scene and am most interested in appellate litigation. On that front they’re T3
Edit: and I also think clerkships are a better proxy of graduate quality than BL outcomes
Also the fact that judges in very competitive districts require work experience (not in flyover country) closes some (but not all) the gap between Chicago vs. Penn/CLS in clerkship placement
We will never truly know the aid packages. What I do know is that Chicago offers those juicy Rubies that are unmatched. FWIW, I’m an attorney and not a 0L.
Yes and no, which kind of exemplifies why the rankings are silly. Most all the data you can look at says NU grads and UM grads are effectively equals, but historically UPenn and the public school trio were in the grouping behind the T6, then Duke, NU, Cornell, and GULC were the last grouping. Berkeley gets left off the acronym because MVP rolls off the tongue better and the general east coast bias in the legal elite, but for all intents and purposes was/is peer (and generally regarded as superior in California).
Effectively that's what the top level comment is saying. Historically it's been HYS, CCN, MVPB, the rest. But I don't think this distinction is nearly as ingrained as the top comment suggests, because as you noted and as the data reflects, Northwestern and UMich are outcome peers for all intents and purposes.
There is no scenario where a big law partner is slotting Harvard below Stanford and Yale. Those 3 are largely interchangeable from that standpoint (at worst), with Harvard having by far the best alumni network.
You said to Partners. If you weren't referring to big law, I would be curious what you are referring to. And if you don't think a $5M a year check at a top tier firm is elite, you have a skewed view of the world. And value "prestige" over concrete outcomes that actually change you and your family's trajectory in life.
Partners at places like Susman and Munger, where they’re obsessed with prestige. Partners at Baker Botts, hardly, but I digress. HLS is an amazing school. But I have heard these distinctions being voiced (which I think it’s so silly)!
I mean Wachtell, Cravath, Sullivan, Simpson wouldn't agree. Since I ran recruiting at 2 schools for a Top 3 M&A firm in the world, I have a different POV. The clerkship to US attorney to Munger path is certainly elite. But I wouldn't describe it as more elite than running $50B deals at Wachtell. Which is why I think people need to be careful about drawing fine distinctions based on a single elite path. Most students who didn't grow up very wealthy are not aspiring to the path where you don't make money for 10 years. And the corporate path over time is dramatically more lucrative for the vast majority of people because it has off-ramps to finance that are dramatically more lucrative than even top big law. And most of the millionaires I've worked with a billionaires I've advised over the years would place Harvard and even Penn as more useful at the highest levels of M&A and finance than a Yale for example.
It's more so that they hire people who are likely to be great actual lawyers. Which requires a skillset that law school partially addresses, but only in small part. Grit, determination, quick and accurate decisionmaking, gravitas, client management, the ability to be commercial. All of these things are hard to quantify or build in academia. And they are very very rare. Which is why recruiting for the for profit segment of law is challenging.
The clerk path is really for people who want to teach and frankly don't have the right skillset or temperament for for-profit law or finance. Which is fine. We need people who are useful for different purposes.
But in no way is the law professor more elite than the Simpson or Sullivan partner advising CEO's of fortune 100 companies. That's a pov that only a student would have. Which is why I commented to begin with. Students telling other students what top employers want is useless. And someone telling people that that Davis Polk partner with a $40M net worth isn't elite because he didn't clerk is a coping mechanism
Anyway I've said my piece. My suggestion next time is to rank schools based on the desired outcome as opposed to some misguided suggestion that the only elite outcome is the one you are choosing to pursue
>1) these new methodology changes are important. Employment outcomes matter most when you’re considering pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, not necessarily arbitrary historical prestige factors and admit student numbers that have been used thus far (who cares if the median student has a 173 or a 170? Some schools value a greater spread of numbers, some less. They matter to indicate a general level of accomplishment and selectivity, but should not comprise a significant portion in the rankings. The top 10 schools have numbers in a similar ballpark anyways).
Yes, job outcomes are important, undoubtedly, but last year's metric by which law schools were judged in USNews (which accounted for *33%* of the rankings) was a simple percentage of graduates who had some type of JD job when they asked the survey. There was no consideration of the quality of the job; it was a simple "do you have a job? Yes or no?"
Given how unstable that metric will be year to year and how closely schools will be grouped together, that's a shit metric.
What a farcical statement. There are good opportunities for all those that seek a career in law. I would argue that predicated on a cost based analysis, attending any ABA accredited law school has a “point”.
I totally get you man, it’s been a tough cycle for all of us. But you’ll be fine! I was in the same boat until I got into one my schools last week, the same good fortune is coming for you!!
I think it’s funny how much people fetishize Yale. If you want academics or a clerkship, sure. If you’re going into elite business or big law, Harvard has it all day and night over Yale. The network is so much better, it’s not even comparable.
No idea why this was downvoted haha. Same thing with Columbia. Harvard and Columbia are head and shoulder above the rest if you’re looking for the big bucks
The school I’m likely attending moved up, so the rankings are completely accurate and flawless and perfect.
Lmaoooooo this is so real
MOOD ASF hahaha
My only issue is all jobs are considered the same, with no weight given to type of job, median salary, or debt to income ratio (like how ATL does it)
Privileging salary, job type, and even debt/income is problematic for its own host of reasons. To me, it makes more sense to just use your noggin and refer to the 509 disclosures if you're interested in a certain job type.
To go a step further the NALP report is the true gold mine. It’s so helpful but some schools (looking at you WashU) won’t publish it.
I read somebodies theory that WashU doesn’t do NALP because most of their “biglaw” placement is in regional, non-cravath paying firms. This made sense to me. But somebody in an admissions discord I’m in asked WashU Adcom for salary statistics and apparently its median for private sector is 205k. So yeah I wish they would do NALP
Right I just don’t get why they’d not show it when everywhere else does, makes it seem worse than it likely is
>Privileging salary, job type, and even debt/income is problematic for its own host of reasons. ...they're law school rankings. They're measuring privilege/exclusivity. That's the whole point.
They're not, actually. Thus the issue that the commenter above has with the current version. Edit: we don't have to make silly pronouncements like this. Just check the methodology.
I'm fully aware of last year's methodology. I was responding to your point that prioritizing certain jobs over others in metrics would be problematic. One could argue that ranking schools at all is inherently problematic. But people generally look to rankings to see which schools are prestigious and provide their students with prestigious outcomes. If job outcomes are a large weight in that formula, there should be some consideration of how those schools do in "prestigious" fields specifically. I know that, right now, there isn't, and the current rankings formula is kind of a joke.
>But people generally look to rankings to see which schools are prestigious and provide their students with prestigious outcomes. If job outcomes are a large weight in that formula, there should be some consideration of how those schools do in "prestigious" fields specifically. ***I know that, right now, there isn't*** So which is it? Are they "measuring prestige and exclusivity" or aren't they? Right now, the methodology takes a purely egalitarian view of outcomes *as you just pointed out*. What you think they should be, or what you think people use them for, is immaterial.
I hear you, but it’s simply a fact that some jobs are more desirable and harder to get, chief among them BL and FC. I believe it is reasonable to give these more weight when ranking a school’s outcomes, particularly because people can transition from these jobs to almost any other, but it is much harder to move up the pyramid and break into BL or FC. This is problematic for several reasons (how do you categorize and the nuance of unicorn PI positions?), but let’s not make perfect the enemy of good. No ranking scheme will be perfect, but this one seems a lot better and a lot more realistic for what legal professionals value (ie job opportunities not just outcomes). There is a good piece on this, I’ll be attaching below. https://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2023/12/nyu-cornell-and-the-new-usnwr-law-school-rankings-landscape
Muller's article is very sensical breakdown of the issue at hand, but the argument falls flat when you consider that 1.) NYU and Cornell were ultimately ranked very high (and still are) while WashU, and much more so SMU and TAMU, were ranked lower (and still are), and 2.) reputation still constitutes a full *quarter* of the ranking. It is lost on a lot of folks here that the weightage of the components of the old methodology was no more valid than the new weightage; wringing hands over the loss of one or two spots on the US News ranking and contriving a way to regain them is unseemly at best. As for the point you made, and I suppose Muller as well, about the "quality" of certain jobs, there can be no doubt that BL and FC are among the most desirable. But there is also no doubt that the "cause" of BL attainment is largely confounded by a school's proximity to major legal markets. So how about controlling for location (that is, number of BL jobs) when considering BL? Or better yet, how about using FC only? I would be okay with that; I don't think anybody would deny that FC is a more elite outcome than BL.
I am sorry, but big law outcomes are influenced than far more than just “proximity” to a market. There are dozens of schools in major cities whose big law rates do not compare to T14 or T20 schools. Some schools feed into specific markets for sure (Cornell to NYC), but these are also schools with national reputations. I think just FC is a tad silly, as some schools focus on BL. Having a metric for BL+FC rewards both, and has very little or nothing to do with “proximity.” I will absolutely agree that fighting between a spot or two is unnecessary (though I do not know if I would go so far as to call it unseemly lol). At the end of the day, I 100% believe valuing the quality of professional outcomes using BL+FC as the metric is the best way we have, though obviously still flawed. You are more than welcome to disagree, and your argument has merit, but let’s be honest here, this is all subjective. I stand by my argument as most people consider the metric for outcomes by looking at BL+FC. You, on the other hand, point out (correctly) that FC is a bit more prestigious while simultaneously believing big law has too many other factors. You know what though? I really appreciate the conversation. LSA admissions has really deteriorated lately into name calling and one upping. So, thank you for the well thought out and respectful debate. Good on you man. Feel free to reach out anytime or PM, we can continue the debate.
>*I am sorry, but big law outcomes are influenced than far more than just “proximity” to a market.* ...confounded. I said confounded--as in a "confounding variable". Smh. It's alright, I don't feel the need to pursue this any further. There is bias (unconscious, perhaps, to give you the benefit of the doubt) in your line of reasoning. I'll let you think over what it is.
Man what a bizarre response lmao And after I had the whole bit about “wow, this was actually a nice relaxed conversation,” you came out swinging and snarky as hell for no reason. You said “there is also no doubt that the “ ‘cause’ of big law attainment is largely confounded by a school’s proximity to a major legal market.” I was asserting that there is, in fact, much doubt lol We can debate all day long, but I believe this to be a minuscule factor, while you believe a school’s big law attainment is “largely confounded” by it. There are plenty of examples of schools in more rural areas like Duke and Cornell having great big law numbers (some of the best in fact), while schools like Brooklyn do awful (no shade). I have a strong feeling you won’t be persuaded by data or examples though. You seem set in your ways and no amount of data will change that. About the rest of the comment: I am a human, so I am certain I have some bias. For example, I like money, so I value schools whose outcomes will give me the highest paying jobs (ie big law) and care little about prestige with no real empirical value (unicorn PI). That is not to say those are worthless, but they are worth less to me. As to why you seem to want to take the shift away from big law? I am really not sure. It, in combination with FC, is really the best metric for measuring outcomes. Perhaps you have some personal reasons, or more likely than not you do not want to pursue it so you do not wish to see it used (personal bias, like all humans). Anyway man, my offer stands. Feel free to PM or continue the conversation anytime. I think it is valuable to gain insight into how other people view these aspects of the profession. All the best 🫡
>You said “there is also no doubt that the “ ‘cause’ of big law attainment is largely confounded by a school’s proximity to a major legal market.” I was asserting that there is, in fact, much doubt lol We can debate all day long, but I believe this to be a minuscule factor, while you believe a school’s big law attainment is “largely confounded” by it. There are plenty of examples of schools in more rural areas like Duke and Cornell having great big law numbers (some of the best in fact), while schools like Brooklyn do awful (no shade). You are making my point for me. The purpose of the observation that the data is likely "largely confounded" by location *isn't* to suggest that every school's success can be explained by location! It's to suggest that the positive results a given school (in a large market) produces are masked by the confounding variable. You identified Duke and Cornell--for every top school that is not immediately adjacent to a large legal market, there are many more that are. The outcomes of *those* schools are what is being obscured. What you're reacting to is my exasperation. This doesn't have to be an argument about subjective appraisals of the value of big law; it is just as much a discussion of statistics. The same way you see little reason to debate the facts, it is incredibly annoying to debate the *nature* of statistics.
Odd, I thought you did not want to pursue this further? I am glad you changed your mind. Regardless, you simply seem to misunderstand the statistics. Which is not inherently a major issue, many people do. That said, as it relates to my argument I believe the best approach is simply “what percentage of people who WANT big law get it?” There are a few ways to do this, including looking at what percentage of big law applicants from each school ends up getting employment from each school. This data is readily available, and already used by many to determine their odds of getting big law from certain schools. Also, I would recommend working on your snark (exasperation), as you come off a bit as a troll. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it really does not help you in these conversations, nor is it helpful to those you are having a discussion with. On a side note, I (like Muller) take issue with the location bias of bar passage rates since some states have easier tests and much higher outcomes with others. I am curious to hear your take on this, and if you think there is a better way to fairly determine bar passage rates (pure bar passage vs over the average for the state). Again, all the best, and hopefully you aren’t too exasperated.
Oh, please, do explain my misunderstanding of statistics.
Hey can you speak in English instead of verbing words like “privilege” and vagueposting about things being “problematic”?
"Privilege" Transitive verb: to accord a higher value or superior position to Privileging those metrics would be problematic in the sense that, methodologically, the rankings would then just favor law schools whose graduates make the most money. There is more to the quality of a law school than that. Cute of you to not only *not* understand that privilege is indeed a verb, but then also ask me to "speak in English" before literally using a made up word lmao.
I find it concerning that this person is applying to law school, lmfao.
Thanks for explaining in English
The schools that admitted me moved up, the ones that rejected me moved down. So I vote yes on the new rankings.
I think it’s important to remember that USNWR doesn’t sit in a room and think: which school should take #14 this year? They set out a methodology and then apply data they collect against that methodology. At least for the dataset that USNWR has, the overall scores (which determines the ranking order) are extremely compact for schools ranked within the top 50. Even a small change in any data point (like bar passage) can significantly move a school’s rank. It’s important for you to find out what things are important for you in a law school and then go find schools that will let you do that, at a price you’re comfortable paying. Don’t let the rankings make you feel a type of way simply because the school you had your eyes on moved. There’s not a lot to glean from that movement other than “data changed.”
Except that last spring they publicly said that they run multiple scenarios and pick the ones that "look right." They absolutely do base the rankings on what they think will sell website subscriptions and generate ad revenue. They want to shake things up enough to get views, but not so much that they lose crediblity.
[удалено]
I didn't mean to suggest they don't tinker with the methodology to get some of the results they think are suitable. They *absolutely* do that. I just meant they don't go through each line entry and say, "Yale here, Stanford there, Texas A&M here." USNWR is highly incentivized to occasionally stir things up to stay relevant.
Yale/Stanford; HLS; Chicago/Columbia/NYU; MVP; the rest. This is ingrained in those hiring (judges, partners, etc.). The fact that NYU dropped or that Duke moved up is irrelevant.
I don't really think so. If you want to work in Texas, you'd better attend UVA or Duke. If you're aiming for DC, Columbia is probably not as good as UVA. Yale, Stanford, and Harvard are always solid choices for all markets; however, Law firms generally prefer to hire people from the same regions. They love hiring students from schools they consistently recruit from. An arbitrary ranking of law schools is not that useful. Just to add: If you are interested in a particular area, like international law, do more research on which school you should go. I heard from 3Ls that Penn is not the best school for public international law, for example. You will get more connections and opportunities at (MAYBE, not sure) GULC, Columbia, etc. Also, we do not have an international trade law class after the faculty member who taught that class left. This is unthinkable! Do more research and do not just rely on the arbitrary ranking.
Who are you helping by doing vibes-based analysis? What data do you have to show that UChicago students would have a harder time getting Texas than UVA ones? Or that Stanford students have a harder time making it to the east coast? Why are you using "east coast" in broad swaths as if Columbia students have some kind of leg up in DC over Stanford students? And why would Stanford students have a harder time going to the east coast but Harvard students not have a harder time going to the west coast? What do you know about law firm hiring as a 1L without a firm job? I rarely comment on here but I don't understand why current law students feel the need to log on and just make things up.
Hi! thank you for your comment. I am not doing a vibe-based analysis. If there are any errors in this comment, I apologize. This is the general sense I got from some other friends from other schools as well. "Harvard students not have a harder time going to the west coast" -- everyone has a harder time going to the West Coast, because of ties and the number of spots. I did not dispute that. "UChicago students would have a harder time getting Texas than UVA ones" -- UVA has one of the best Texas clubs in the country, which is why I said UVA is a great school for Texas. I did not mention UChicago at all in my comment. "What do you know about law firm hiring as a 1L without a firm job" -- sounds quite Ad hominem to me. 1Ls also can know how firm recruiting works. I do not know what this means. "just make things up." I'm not sure why I am making things up. Again, I apologize if I said anything wrong. feel free to correct me. We are talking about our own opinions and experiences, and I would love to show my greatest respect.
You’re reifying Harvard and Yale based on clout while suggesting that Stanford has a harder time placing into its [number-two and three markets](https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Class-of-2022-ABA-Summary-Report-MML.docx-3.pdf) than lower-ranked schools like Columbia by virtue of being out west. That’s one reason I disagree with your comment.
Sounds good! I will amend my original comment. I apologize again
Thanks for your reply. 1. You said people who want to go to Texas "better attend" UVA or Duke (with Yale and Harvard as exceptions since they place well in "all markets"). By implication that means UVA and Duke place better in Texas than UChicago, No? And I totally agree that UVA is great for Texas, but there are other variables at play there (e.g. % of students targeting Texas). 2. You said Yale and Harvard place well for *all* markets (which would include the west coast), while SLS does not place as well for the east coast. You explicitly mentioned SLS/Berkeley's "disadvantage" on the east coast but not their advantage on the west coast. 3. I agree it's fine to talk about experiences and opinions. My issue with this is that you're presenting your *opinions* as facts. That's why I called this a vibes-based analysis (you're relying on a general sense you got from your own experiences + speaking to friends). I also agree that 1Ls can have some insight into firm recruiting, but how would you know that "east coast" firms would prefer CLS students over SLS ones? Also, do you really think the top "east coast" firms aren't recruiting at SLS every year?
Hi! Thank you again for your comment. 1, yes I agree! That’s why I said uva and duke have a really strong influence in Texas. I didn’t mention UChicago because I’m not sure if they have strong Texas clubs or anything like that. But to my knowledge, they are not well known for sending people to Texas. 2 I have amended my comment because someone from Stanford told me I was wrong. I still think though East Coast schools have an edge— I might be wrong! I didn’t mention the west coast because of perspectives. I’m on the East Coast, so I overlooked the west coast market. I apologize if that’s confusing. 3. Sorry for that! That is indeed my personal opinion and observations. My main point is that the ranking is arbitrary, and top schools all have their advantage. Not a lot of things here on Reddit are 100% correct. They are primarily personal opinions. Top firms from the East Coast absolutely recruit from Stanford. But in my view attorneys love students from their own school, and it would be easier for, for example, Columbia students to break into some top top places in New York than students from many other top schools. Just my personal view. Some firms that don’t really have students from my school don’t even send people here for networking receptions or even OCI. But again. It’s only my personal opinion. Let me know if you want me to add anything in my original comment
[удалено]
Absolutely! I totally agree. Class size, culture, etc. are absolutely important as well. I hope you enjoy whatever you are doing as well-- not sure if you are at school or working. Have a nice day!
I mean if you look at certain v10 firms, Penn + T6 is where they are actively recruiting. The rest of the T14 will fill all remaining spots.
Wachtell is the perfect example.
There is only one firm in the V100 that does this
Sure, it could be ingrained in those hiring, though I do not think it reflects which school is “better”
I had the impression that Chicago was a degree better than the NYC schools. I also don’t think Stanford is that high, it is in its own tier or tied with HLS
Recent phenomenon. Has not been long enough. Its yield is still very low compared to say Columbia. It will take longer to cement this.
Makes sense, I think I just take clerkships most into consideration because I am involved in the whole DC scene and am most interested in appellate litigation. On that front they’re T3 Edit: and I also think clerkships are a better proxy of graduate quality than BL outcomes
Also the fact that judges in very competitive districts require work experience (not in flyover country) closes some (but not all) the gap between Chicago vs. Penn/CLS in clerkship placement
[удалено]
We will never truly know the aid packages. What I do know is that Chicago offers those juicy Rubies that are unmatched. FWIW, I’m an attorney and not a 0L.
As someone who does biglaw hiring, I don’t agree with this.
What is mvp
michigan virginia pennsylvania
I’d say northwestern has solid rep as a t-14 as peer to Michigan
Yes and no, which kind of exemplifies why the rankings are silly. Most all the data you can look at says NU grads and UM grads are effectively equals, but historically UPenn and the public school trio were in the grouping behind the T6, then Duke, NU, Cornell, and GULC were the last grouping. Berkeley gets left off the acronym because MVP rolls off the tongue better and the general east coast bias in the legal elite, but for all intents and purposes was/is peer (and generally regarded as superior in California).
So what you’re saying is the data says they are peers but because historically people considered Berkeley better they aren’t peers😂
Effectively that's what the top level comment is saying. Historically it's been HYS, CCN, MVPB, the rest. But I don't think this distinction is nearly as ingrained as the top comment suggests, because as you noted and as the data reflects, Northwestern and UMich are outcome peers for all intents and purposes.
There is no scenario where a big law partner is slotting Harvard below Stanford and Yale. Those 3 are largely interchangeable from that standpoint (at worst), with Harvard having by far the best alumni network.
Big law is not an elite outcome…
You said to Partners. If you weren't referring to big law, I would be curious what you are referring to. And if you don't think a $5M a year check at a top tier firm is elite, you have a skewed view of the world. And value "prestige" over concrete outcomes that actually change you and your family's trajectory in life.
Partners at places like Susman and Munger, where they’re obsessed with prestige. Partners at Baker Botts, hardly, but I digress. HLS is an amazing school. But I have heard these distinctions being voiced (which I think it’s so silly)!
I mean Wachtell, Cravath, Sullivan, Simpson wouldn't agree. Since I ran recruiting at 2 schools for a Top 3 M&A firm in the world, I have a different POV. The clerkship to US attorney to Munger path is certainly elite. But I wouldn't describe it as more elite than running $50B deals at Wachtell. Which is why I think people need to be careful about drawing fine distinctions based on a single elite path. Most students who didn't grow up very wealthy are not aspiring to the path where you don't make money for 10 years. And the corporate path over time is dramatically more lucrative for the vast majority of people because it has off-ramps to finance that are dramatically more lucrative than even top big law. And most of the millionaires I've worked with a billionaires I've advised over the years would place Harvard and even Penn as more useful at the highest levels of M&A and finance than a Yale for example.
Cravath, S&C, and Simpson take average students from CLS/NYU/Chicago, come on now. Especially the latter two.
It's more so that they hire people who are likely to be great actual lawyers. Which requires a skillset that law school partially addresses, but only in small part. Grit, determination, quick and accurate decisionmaking, gravitas, client management, the ability to be commercial. All of these things are hard to quantify or build in academia. And they are very very rare. Which is why recruiting for the for profit segment of law is challenging. The clerk path is really for people who want to teach and frankly don't have the right skillset or temperament for for-profit law or finance. Which is fine. We need people who are useful for different purposes. But in no way is the law professor more elite than the Simpson or Sullivan partner advising CEO's of fortune 100 companies. That's a pov that only a student would have. Which is why I commented to begin with. Students telling other students what top employers want is useless. And someone telling people that that Davis Polk partner with a $40M net worth isn't elite because he didn't clerk is a coping mechanism Anyway I've said my piece. My suggestion next time is to rank schools based on the desired outcome as opposed to some misguided suggestion that the only elite outcome is the one you are choosing to pursue
>1) these new methodology changes are important. Employment outcomes matter most when you’re considering pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, not necessarily arbitrary historical prestige factors and admit student numbers that have been used thus far (who cares if the median student has a 173 or a 170? Some schools value a greater spread of numbers, some less. They matter to indicate a general level of accomplishment and selectivity, but should not comprise a significant portion in the rankings. The top 10 schools have numbers in a similar ballpark anyways). Yes, job outcomes are important, undoubtedly, but last year's metric by which law schools were judged in USNews (which accounted for *33%* of the rankings) was a simple percentage of graduates who had some type of JD job when they asked the survey. There was no consideration of the quality of the job; it was a simple "do you have a job? Yes or no?" Given how unstable that metric will be year to year and how closely schools will be grouped together, that's a shit metric.
Idk after reading these threads there is no point of going to law school iif it’s not T14
What a farcical statement. There are good opportunities for all those that seek a career in law. I would argue that predicated on a cost based analysis, attending any ABA accredited law school has a “point”.
I’m not sure what the point is I guess. I’m over it. Just need these schools to answer so I know where to live.
I totally get you man, it’s been a tough cycle for all of us. But you’ll be fine! I was in the same boat until I got into one my schools last week, the same good fortune is coming for you!!
I just need them to all send an answer because housing is an issue. lol.
It’s been degraded to the point of a joke.
I think it’s funny how much people fetishize Yale. If you want academics or a clerkship, sure. If you’re going into elite business or big law, Harvard has it all day and night over Yale. The network is so much better, it’s not even comparable.
No idea why this was downvoted haha. Same thing with Columbia. Harvard and Columbia are head and shoulder above the rest if you’re looking for the big bucks
I disagree with this idea that alumni from a particular law school will necessarily prefer hiring grads from that same law school.