<p>For undegrad admissions, decisions are based upon an eclectic goulash of factors; for Law School, it seems to be pretty GPA/score driven. </p>
<p>For undergrad, rankings should be overlooked in pursuit of fit. The Q is: is "fit" applicable in Law School and, if so, what factors should figure in? Or is it a case where for career purposes you should go to the highest ranked Law School you can get into?</p>
<p>i think there would still be some factors that i will have to take into account for law school. location is one a big one for me, i love my california sunshine too much and i would also like to practice in california. price is the second big factor for me... personally, i would give up having to shell out tons of $$ to go to yale and instead save some $$ to go to a "lesser" law school like boalt or UCLA. but at the same time, the prestigiousness or ranking of a law school will be somewhat of a factor for career purposes; i would be okay going to say, hastings law school, but not as content going to cal western or whittier. </p>
<p>in short, stanford, boalt, and ucla would be my top picks and if i got into any one of those, i would probably pick it over michigan or virginia or cornell. but thats just me</p>
<p>I would say that generally, for career purposes, reputation/ranking is very important in law. </p>
<p>For this reason, you should definitely take it into consideration -- but not in the purely literal sense that you indicate (simply going "to the highest ranked Law School you can get into.") </p>
<p>There's no question that the top 14 or 15 schools offer more national opportunities than other schools. There's also no question that the top three schools (Harvard, Yale, and Stanford) generally offer even more opportunities and security. For this reason, I would generally take an offer at one of those three schools where possible, and I would generally take an offer at any top 14/15 school where possible, as the advantage is significant. </p>
<p>It's also true that schools in the top half of the top 14 generally offer more opportunities than schools in the bottom half. However, at this point, it becomes more of an issue of fit. </p>
<p>Also, once you move outside the top 14 schools, regional considerations become far more important. Many schools will place better in a nearby city than many higher-ranked schools, so you should first establish where you want to work and live. Outside of the top 14/15 schools, you should therefore attend the schools with the best reputation in your desired region. </p>
<p>(USNews ranking doesn't always capture this very well, but you may be able to use it as as shorthand when comparing local schools. Just don't assume a school in another part of the country will have a better local rep just because it's ranked somewhat higher in USNews. It often won't.) </p>
<p>Outside of the overall reputation/ranking issue, Class Rank is also very important. This is why "Fit" also matters a great deal. Generally, it's far better to attend a school where you will thrive and excel, even if it's ranked a few spots lower. For example, someone who makes law review at Georgetown , Northwestern, or UVA will have far more opportunities than someone who does poorly, or even average, at Columbia or NYU. In fact, someone who makes law review at UCLA will probably have better opportunities (especially in California), and someone who makes law review at a 2nd-tier school will generally have more opportunities than someone who does average at most 1st-tier programs. </p>
<p>So when looking at schools that are roughly comparable, you should definitely take your own personal feelings into account. Think about the location of the school, and how that will affect your studies. Think about the way you feel when you visit the campus, etc. If you're significantly more comfortable at one school than another, and you think you'll perform better there, then you should probably take it even if it may be ranked somewhat lower. (If the difference in reputation/ranking is significant, that may be another story.)</p>
<p>As usual, the grad edition of US News may be able to (indirectly) answer some of your questions.</p>
<p>Straight-up law school ranking isn't the most important factor: think of where you (or the D) wants to practice. I would rather try to get a job in Atlanta, being an Emory grad, than try to get a job in Atlanta as a Penn grad. Generally, there are the top 14 schools, but, beyond Harvard and Yale, even those exhibit geographic favouritism. (Law School Confidential discusses this). For example, Georgetown grads stay in or around DC; Duke grads are in the South; Penn grads go between DC and NYC. So - US News, in the back. They list percentages of students who go to each region of the country for each school. </p>
<p>I certainly looked at law schools with "fit" in mind. "Fit," unlike undergrad, isn't so much about activities or whatever. For me, I really hunted down the schools with a warm atmosphere (v. cutthroat). Very happy I did - while getting Socratically mutilated this morning, someone very kindly whispered the section I was supposed to look under - then gave me his notes! (Prof. doesn't allow note-taking during mutilation.) Other "happy" law schools include Brooklyn, American, Penn, and Northwestern. The latter two are the only ones in the Top 10 where people actually like each other (or so they say!). </p>
<p>If you are looking for a specific area of law, some schools do have an advantage. American (WCL) is one of the few law schools with an IP clinic and journal - which made it quite attractive to me. Cardozo, OTOH, is in the top 5 for IP, but just made me so claustrophobic that I couldn't imagine going there and being happy. The danger with that is, should you decide that you hate the area of law, you're stuck at the school. </p>
<p>So - I would guess that the big law school "fit" factors are geography (very related to placement), how much people like each other, and if they offer enough courses/journal opportunities/clinics in the area of practice you are looking for.</p>
<p>Fit or culture is a question of personal taste in some respect. For example, in L.A. there is a decidedly different "culture" between USC and UCLA. I will not start a war here in this forum, but anyone who has visited each school would know the difference.</p>
<p>I personally looked for a school that was the top-rated night program around because I was a tad older and did not worry about fit and culture, and that is what my ego demanded. I got lucky: I found a (mainly) supportive student body, and my current best friend is someone I met in L.S. On the other hand, the school administration was totally non-supportive of its students. At the same time the deans of every other California L.S. were calling upon the State Bar to revamp the bar exam because of the dismal passage rate, our dean called out the students for "not working hard enough." Try eating that with your normal 2 hour L.A. commute, 8 hour work day, L.S. 4 nights a week, and your first child to boot.</p>
<p>In retrospect, I would have worried more about student support and less about prestige.</p>
<p>CD, almost idle curiosity, but would you mind telling me where you went? If you don't want to go public, PM is okay.</p>
<p>AA, you know too well what I'm about. Data Acquisition 'R Us. This is like a whole new puzzle to solve...new vocabulary, new data...that engineering mindset really burned deep.</p>
<p>CD--Can you explain your take on the difference between the culture at UCLA and USC? I'm clueless and curious but I wouldn't be one to start any CC board wars over it!</p>
<p>Oh...Enjoyingthis...I shall have to walk away. mmph flmm grrkmph!</p>
<p>TheDad: I went to Loyola (now #57 I believe in US News rankings)</p>
<p>enjoyingthis, at the risk of being flamed, let's just say that at one school the "old boys" network is alive at well. At the other school, there is -- IMHO -- more diversity of student and thought.</p>
<p>Whoa - about to get a little toasty in here... (coming from the East coaster who only knows that one is public, one is private).</p>
<p>TheDad - engin. mindset? Polish generals aside?</p>
<p>Just to note, in terms of diversity of geographic placement, the breakdown of top schools is as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Harvard</p></li>
<li><p>Chicago</p></li>
<li><p>Yale</p></li>
<li><p>Virginia</p></li>
<li><p>Michigan</p></li>
<li><p>Stanford</p></li>
<li><p>Columbia</p></li>
<li><p>Georgetown</p></li>
<li><p>Duke</p></li>
<li><p>Penn</p></li>
<li><p>NYU</p></li>
<li><p>Texas</p></li>
<li><p>Northwestern</p></li>
<li><p>Vanderbilt</p></li>
<li><p>Cornell</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley</p></li>
</ol>
<p>There are several schools comparable to Harvard and Yale in terms of diversity of national placement, both today and historically. </p>
<p>More importantly, to the extent there is any regional favoritism, it's important to recognize that for most top-10 schools, this is largely the product of self-selection. Many NYU grads may choose to stay in New York, for example, but most could get jobs elsewhere if they wanted. </p>
<p>So again, outside the top 14, you should definitely take regional considerations into account, as local reputation often matters more than overall ranking. But within this group, I would pretty much always take a top 14 over a regional powerhouse, especially if I had a shot at one of the traditionally most national schools (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, Michigan, Virginia, and now NYU.) </p>
<p>The primary possible exception would be if I were certain I wanted to practice locally, and I received a scholarship covering most of my overall costs. Even then, however, you're usually sacrificing some degree of competitive advantage. </p>
<p>Outside of this, the only other times I think local schools might exceed a top 14 would be in the case of schools like Texas in Texas (almost certainly better than many top 14's), UCLA in L.A. (probably better than many) and maybe Vanderbilt in its region. </p>
<p>(For those wanting a breakdown of top-school placement in each major market, Leiter posts this as well.) </p>
<p>In terms of friendliness, the most "happy" school in the top 10 is usually considered to be Virginia, which is supposedly very laid-back and sociable. Stanford, from all accounts, is also extremely relaxed. (Placement is pretty much guaranteed, weather and location is nice, and it doesn't have the pointless residual competition of Yale, or the large class size of Harvard.) I've also heard good things about Michigan. I haven't heard much about Penn's environment, with the only reports being negative, but it may have changed in recent years. I'm wouldn't be surprised if Northwestern is a positive place, given it's nice location.</p>
<p>I've spent a little time on the USC campus, and all I can say is that the location is annoying -- a walled fortress in a sketchy part of town, which to me leaves something to be desired. Too much concrete. UCLA is supposedly much nicer in terms of location and grounds. </p>
<p>This doesn't change the fact that both are excellent schools, of course. Just seems like UCLA would have a nicer overall environment. </p>
<p>However, I believe that the "Old Boy Network" is the one thing that really works in USC's favor -- their primary placement advantage is supposedly the fact that they have a strong and loyal alumni network in L.A..</p>
<p>Aries: Polish generals included.</p>
<p>TheDad: Not sure I'm hitting your question exactly, but I have two perspectives of LS from family experience (one in progress).</p>
<p>My brother is HLS grad and BIG CITY, BIG FIRM partner. He has worked for large national law firms his entire career. I assume HLS buttons are pushed regularly. Despite his apparent success, my S doesn't view his uncle as a role model of what S might find himself doing once he earns his JD.</p>
<p>S is a 2L at UWisc LS. He pretty much was LSAT/GPA qualified for schools in the #16-30 range (lots of waitlists - all really polite rejections). He chose UWisc over WUStL, UIllinois, and UMinn, and a few other safeties above the top 50. He is a left coaster, but was not concerned with choosing a law school based upon where he though he wanted to live and practice law "for the rest of his life". He felt a LS education would position him for a variety of careers down the road besides legal work if he was so inclined. He chose Wisc over slightly higher ranked schools because UW had more programs of interest to him, had the possibility to create a unique combined masters degree, and demonstrated a supportive (more laid back) environment both at the school and in the city. While he has not focused on a "law" direction yet, he has been presented with many opportunities and has enjoyed every one of them (just one of those happy guys). He emphatically does not want a career like my brother's. He expects to move around a bit during his adult life and have several careers. His JD should at the very least get his foot in some doors.</p>
<p>On a side note, H's business engages a firm in our major city whose lawyers have LS backgrounds of varying tiers and geographic locations. Somehow they all ended up here.</p>
<p>Cardozo (by the way, are you a law student, lawyer, or thinking of becoming one of those?)~</p>
<p>I'll politely disagree with some of what you said. While a school like NYU is clearly fabulous and will impress almost any employer, which would enable a student to practice anywhere, the reality is that it's easiest to get a job in NYC. Idaho law firms might be quite impressed with a NYU JD, but not many of them are going to fly out to NYC to interview students. In terms of time and cost, on-campus interviews are incredibly expensive for law firms. It's easier for them to interview students who are local, and, as a local student, you're going to see all of the law firms in the area, not just the ones that felt like they could take the time and money to send a few partners several hundred miles away in the hopes of recruiting one student. </p>
<p>I stand by what I said earlier: if you're at Emory, every major Atlanta law firm will do interviews at your school. Many of the partners will be Emory grads. While UMich is a great l.s., I have a really hard time believing that the connections and sheer volume of opportunities would be there for a kid who wanted to interview in Atlanta. The student would have to do more leg work on their own, instead of simply dropping off resumes at their career services and having interviewers come to them.</p>
<p>Hi, Aries. I'm an attorney. You're always welcome to disagree. :^)</p>
<p>Obviously, for logistical reasons, it may be easiest for an NYU Grad to get a job in NYC. However, as you note, they can also probably get jobs anywhere else. </p>
<p>The truth is, at any top school, you'll generally have hundreds of firms, from all over the country, looking for associates. (This is especially true of the schools I noted.) It's true that only the top Idaho firms might come to NYU. However, the typical NYU student wouldn't want to work anywhere but a top Idaho firm (if, for some reason, they actually wanted to work in Idaho.) </p>
<p>Moreover, what you're missing is the fact that even if more firms hire at a smaller Idaho school, they'll mostly be looking for the top students. So the law review students at that school may end up with offers, but most people won't. On the other hand, most people from top schools would probably be able to finagle offers from a good Idaho firm if they wanted one. </p>
<p>The bottom line is that the top national schools have superior reputations nationally, not just in their region. (That's why they're considered national.) Because of that reputation, you can usually get jobs in any market with decent grades -- and this is not always the case coming from regional schools. And again, it's not the number of interviewers that's determinative -- it's the grades/class-rank they're willing to accept before they make an offer. </p>
<p>Idaho isn't a very good example, because most people wouldn't want to work there. Atlanta's a little better. However, I think once you go through the interview process, you'll find that schools like the ones I mentioned have a clear advantage over Emory, even in Atlanta. Again, they'll all have a number of Atlanta firms coming on-campus to interview, and even if they didn't get offers there, they'd get one fairly quickly by sending out resumes. On the other hand, only the top students at Emory will get jobs through OCI, with the rest left to compete among themselves for other positions. In that context, someone from a top national school will definitely have an advantage.</p>
<p>Thanks, Cardozo, Aries, and Maize/Blue. I think my D is aiming at some fairly specific national public policy tracks and my guess is that if she doesn't qualify for Top 14/16 (plus maybe G'town and a couple of others with cachet and access in D.C.) that she may look at other paths such as graduate work in specific areas. She has no interest in litigation, commercial, criminal, PI, etc. </p>
<p>I'm not sure that I understand all the answers and that will be her business anyway but at least I'm beginning to understand the questions, as in Harvard Grad versus Law Review at G'town.</p>
<p>Btw, there's a case: what percentage of a class are invited to Law Review? What are the criteria for selection? And how would you weigh being a "regular" at HYS versus being on Law Review at G'town?</p>
<p>aries, which other law schools are "happy" law schools?</p>
<p>"Happy" law school? It sounds like someplace the world's shortest giant would go.</p>
<p>I'd guess that ten percent make the principal law review. (Some schools have some specialized law journals as well, but there's typically one general law review.) At some schools it's purely a matter of first-year grades; at others there's a written competition. Some schools may use a combination of the two.</p>
<p>There was an old saying when I was in school: "Going for law review is like a pie eating contest, where the prize is more pie."</p>
<p>I haven't looked at Leiter's propaganda in a while, but my recollection is that this is "national" employment data, based solely on specific firms which Leiter chose. Now, before getting into whether the firms chosen are reasonable--I think they most definitely are NOT--there's still the fact that this is solely based on LAW FIRM placement. So, folks who end up at law profs or federal and state court justices don't count. So, the Harvard grad who was chief judge of the Texas Supreme Court for example, doesn't show up at all in the Texas data. </p>
<p>Anyway...this is not employment or placement data. This is a list based only on placement in particular "Vault" law firms especially chosen by Leiter. If I'm incorrect, I'm sure you'll correct me ;)!</p>