Advantage of ranked Law Schools?

ariesathena · January 20, 2005, 9:04pm

Cardozo -
As you mention, there is a leg-work aspect to getting employment outside of where the national schools typically place. I am well aware that they do place nationally (and even many beyond the top 14 place quite well throughout the country), but there is still geographic favouritism. It's a trade-off: more leg work at a national school to get resumes out to those firms, and more work to actually get there (as you correctly noted, they don't do OCI, so the student will have to go back and forth to interview!) v. perhaps not having the opportunities go only to the top students.

As for TheDad's law review question - I think that percentage is somewhat the wrong way to look at it. Most journals are staffed by about 35 students - which is the top 5% at some schools (given that it's both 2Ls and 3Ls), and the top 15% at smaller schools. Typically, every school has a "Law Review," and some more specialized law journals, such as international law, environmental law, death penalty, etc. Law Review is usually the most prestigous of them.

jonri · January 21, 2005, 12:23am

Different law schools select law review members using different methods. This link is a little out of date, but will give you general information about the top 50 law schools and how each selects law review members.

<a href="http://www.bcgsearch.com/BCGbook_2003_blue.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.bcgsearch.com/BCGbook_2003_blue.pdf</a>

Cardozo · January 22, 2005, 7:35am

Hi, Jonri.

I assume you were responding to my posting (if not, I apologize).

However, if so, I don't believe I was really misrepresenting anything. Leiter's list purports to measure diversity of geographic placement, and that's why I cited it. (If you have issues with his methodology, you're welcome to critique it. However, I haven't seen any similar studies, and since his main bias is in favor of Texas, I'm not sure how much that affects the other schools.)

In terms of your main point -- you're correct that this list doesn't measure placement as professors or judges. (I didn't claim it it did.) However, as Judicial appointments are more political than law firm jobs, the Supreme Court justices of each state are more likely to be from local schools. (On the other hand, academics is even more snooty than practice, so professors are probably even more likely to be from "top" schools.)

For what it's worth, however, Leiter also has lists of the top schools for Academic and Supreme Court Clerk Placement, and the top seven schools in this list also place in the top seven in those lists.

However, if you have better data on any of these areas, feel free to post it.

jonri · January 22, 2005, 3:39pm

Leiter looks at how many attorneys from 22 law schools are working at 45 "Vault" law schools which he alleges are a "national" sample. Now, first, I don't think that the only jobs that matter are those at law firms. Leiter isn't looking at how many grads get clerkships or work for legal aid or as assistant district attorneys or as assistant US Attorneys or in the legal departments of large corporations or as judges or as sole practitioners or any of the other myriad of places in which attorneys work.

Then, Leiter decides to only look at large law firms...not all law firms, only large ones. Then he decides to look only at large law firms he selects in certain cities. He looks at 45 firms. Switch one or two of those firms for different firms and the law school rankings will be different.

For example, one of his Midwestern representative firms is Jones Day. It's a fine firm. It is based in Cleveland. However, it has 14 offices and most of them are not in the Midwest. It has 5 offices in California and 2 in Texas. One in D.C. Leiter's explanation is unclear, but it looks as the attorneys who work in those offices are included in Leiter's calculations for rankings. So, to figure out how attorneys place "nationally," Leiter looks at 45 large law firms of which 3 are based in Texas and at least one more has 2 offices in Texas. I think this stacks the deck in favor of U Texas law school.

Now, let me switch Jones Day to Barnes & Thornburgh. B&T does have an office in Washington, but otherwise, all of its offices are in the Midwest. It's an Indiana-based firm, but has offices in Michigan and Chicago. It has 390 attorneys. Without actually counting the numbers, I'm fairly confident that B&T actually has as many attorneys working in the Midwest as Jones Day does.

Including B&T in the ratings would give a HUGE boost to Notre Dame Law School. B&T does have 2 UTexas attorneys, both in the Washington office. If I counted correctly, it has 10 attorneys from UMichigan, 6 from Harvard, 5 from UVa, 5 from Northwestern, 4 from Georgetown, 2 from Duke, 3 from Yale, 2 from Stanford. So, using B& T rather than Jones Day as one of the "Midwest" firms would change the law school rankings. I don't think I'm being unfair because Indianapolis is a larger city than Cleveland and with with all but one of its offices in the Midwest, I think B&T better reflects placement in the Midwest than Jones Day with 5 offices in California, 2 in Texas and one in D.C.

In other words, I don't think Leiter's data proves anything other than which law schools place best at the 45 firms he chooses to investigate. There's nothing "magic" about that list of law firms.

jonri · January 22, 2005, 3:44pm

Leiter looks at how many attorneys from 22 law schools are working at 45 "Vault" law schools which he alleges are a "national" sample. Now, first, I don't think that the only jobs that matter are those at law firms. Leiter isn't looking at how many grads get clerkships or work for legal aid or as assistant district attorneys or as assistant US Attorneys or in the legal departments of large corporations or as judges or as sole practitioners or any of the other myriad of places in which attorneys work.

Then, Leiter decides to only look at large law firms...not all law firms, only large ones. Then he decides to look only at large law firms he selects in certain cities. He looks at 45 firms. Switch one or two of those firms for different firms and the law school rankings will be different.

For example, one of his Midwestern representative firms is Jones Day. It's a fine firm. It is based in Cleveland. However, it has 14 offices and most of them are not in the Midwest. It has 5 offices in California and 2 in Texas . One in D.C., Atlanta and Pittsburgh. Leiter's explanation is unclear, but it looks as the attorneys who work in those offices are included in Leiter's calculations for rankings. So, to figure out how attorneys place "nationally," Leiter looks at 45 large law firms of which 3 are based in Texas and at least one more has 2 offices in Texas. I think this stacks the deck in favor of U Texas law school.

Now, let me switch Jones Day to Barnes & Thornburgh. B&T does have an office in Washington, but otherwise, all of its offices are in the Midwest. It's an Indiana-based firm, but has offices in Michigan and Chicago. It has 390 attorneys. Without actually counting the numbers, I'm fairly confident that B&T actually has as many attorneys working in the Midwest as Jones Day does.

Including B&T in the ratings would give a HUGE boost to Notre Dame Law School. B&T does have 2 UTexas attorneys, both in the Washington office. If I counted correctly, it has 10 attorneys from UMichigan, 6 from Harvard, 5 from UVa, 5 from Northwestern, 4 from Georgetown, 2 from Duke, 3 from Yale, 2 from Stanford. So, using B& T rather than Jones Day as one of the "Midwest" firms would change the law school rankings. I don't think I'm being unfair because Indianapolis is a larger city than Cleveland and with with all but one of its offices in the Midwest, I think B&T better reflects placement in the Midwest than Jones Day which has MOST of its offices in other parts of the country. Moreover, some of those offices are in cities which Leiter has already selected other firms to represent. So, in effect Jones Day is another firm in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Pittsburgh, D.C. and including it weighs those cities more heavily in the "national" rankings.
In other words, I don't think Leiter's data proves anything other than which law schools place best at the 45 firms he chooses to investigate. There's nothing "magic" about that list of law firms. Change a couple of firms on the list, and the law school rankings would change.

Cardozo · January 22, 2005, 6:52pm

"As you mention, there is a leg-work aspect to getting employment outside of where the national schools typically place. I am well aware that they do place nationally (and even many beyond the top 14 place quite well throughout the country), but there is still geographic favouritism."

There MAY be a leg-work aspect. Again, the most national schools have a number of firms from each region coming on-campus to interview. And since the most national schools place strongly pretty much everywhere, I'm not sure what would really be considered "outside" that area.

Also, I'm not sure if sending out resumes really qualifies as "leg" work -- especially when the majority of students at schools like Emory will probably end up doing the same thing.

"It's a trade-off: more leg work at a national school to get resumes out to those firms, and more work to actually get there (as you correctly noted, they don't do OCI, so the student will have to go back and forth to interview!) v. perhaps not having the opportunities go only to the top students."

Again, I'm not convinced there would really be any more "leg" work in terms of getting resumes out, and, as noted, the best firms from any major market will all usually interview at the most national schools. Smaller firms from those markets may not do OCI, but it's not clear why any student would prefer working at those firms, at least to start with.

If a national-school student did not get a regional job through OCI, he could simply flood that market with resumes, wait for interview offers, and then fly into the market to interview. He might well have his airfare and lodging paid for at that point. And he could schedule his interviews over a few days, so it wouldn't have to be that difficult.

Most students at most schools, on the other hand, will not get jobs through OCI, and will therefore have to repeat the same resume process in their own region. The difference will be that these students will be competing against many other graduates from the same school, and the firms will demand a signficantly higher class rank. They will therefore probably have a harder time getting both inteviews and offers.

So again, while there may be some degree of trade-off, it's probably going to be a trade-off that usually favors the national-school student. While geographic favoritism certainly exists, it is limited in scope, and when you get to the very best schools, even regional employers will generally recognize them as superior to local schools.

(Again, a Tier 2 or 3 local powerhouse may well outplace most distant Tier 1 schools, and schools like Texas and UCLA may well outplace most Top 14's in their respective markets. But most schools will not be viewed comparably to the very best schools in the nation, even within their region.)

Now, if you're talking about the editor of the Emory Law Review vs. an average Harvard or Virginia student, I agree that the editor will have the advantage. At that point, local favoritism, combined with class rank, will trump the reputational advantage. But generally, an average student at a top school will have an advantage over most students at a more regional school. Again, everyone in the country appears to know what the truly "best" schools are, and they've been placing nationally for decades, so their reputations and connections will be ingrained in pretty much every market.

It's also important to note, again, that local markets are flooded with graduates of local schools every year. For this reason, even where the school is respected, firms will generally pick from the best local students, leaving many with a challenge in terms of finding jobs. However, those firms that respect local schools will also respect national schools, and will probably want to have a grad or two from each such school on their staff where possible. Therefore, when one comes to them, he'll stand out much more than students from the local schools (unless they happen to be law review).

And when you get to the major markets, where many students hope to practice (New York, D.C., etc.) the preference for top-school grads is even more pronounced.

Therefore, if you're certain you'll make law review at a school like Emory, and you're certain that you want to work in Atlanta, then it might be worth selecting over a top program, especially if you get a scholarship offer. However, predicting eventual class rank is an uncertain prospect, which is why most students usually choose the greater security of a national program. (Future class rank is also unknowable at a top program, and the competition may be stiffer. However, I know graduates from UVa who got decent jobs in major markets without even listing their GPA on their resume. Again, at this level, reputation can be very helpful.)

Cardozo · January 22, 2005, 7:36pm

Hi, Jonri.

From my reading of the Leiter survey, his city selections are based on those cities in each region that have at least 3 or more firms in the Vault 100 list, along with the 23 "Best of the Rest" group.

In other words, all firms are among the largest in the country, and all cities qualify as having at least several firms from among the largest in the country. While this may not be perfect, it seems to make sense. Also, Leiter does include firms and cities from around the entire country, which is obviously important in terms of determining "national" placement.

Also, I think you're mistaken about one key point -- I believe Leiter focuses only on hiring at the respective branch offices in question. Obviously, counting Jones Day's Washington D.C. office as a "Midwestern" hire wouldn't make any sense. (If you were correct about this, it would certainly weaken the study.)

I'm therefore not sure what specificaly could be done to improve the overall methodology. You can certainly make adjustments, and conduct your own study, but I think the results would always be similar, for the simple reason that the top schools in Leiter's study are also the schools with the strongest national reputations, according to yearly USNews surveys.

(I agree that Leiter's study is probably biased to boost Texas. However, it's not clear how this affects other schools, if at all.)

You are correct that this study does not measure placement in all areas, but simply in major law firms. However, most applicants, for good or ill, are eventually looking to work in major law firms. As far as clerkships and academia go, Leiter does have data on placement in these areas, at least at the highest levels, and they tend to correspond with the national placement listing.

Moreover, it's unclear why attorneys in other practice areas would have different perspectives than attorneys at major firms. The reputation surveys in USNews are farmed out to thousands of lawyers and judges, not just those at large firms, and they pretty consistently note the same schools as the best.

Now some jobs, like legal aid, may look for evidence of commitment ahead of school reputation. And more political jobs, like District Attorneys, may depend more on local contacts. But even these jobs are probably affected somewhat by reputation, if perhaps not to the same extent as law firm jobs. (Clerkships and academic positions are among the most prestige-oriented.) And the preference for local, connected hires wouldn't help other non-local schools.

Small firms may also care less about reputation, with a greater focus on local alumni contacts. However, this also wouldn't seem to help other non-regional schools much.

Now, as far as Notre Dame goes, I think it's generally agreed that Notre Dame is one of the most national schools outside the top 15, because it has such a prominent overall reputation, and a loyal, national, alumni network.

Moreover, I am certainly not saying you CAN'T get a job in a major firm, or in another area, from other schools. If you do well at most schools, you can get jobs in large firms, clerkships, etc., and if you are top of your class at any Top-tier school, you'll probably have more national opportunities than the average Harvard grad.

These are simply the schools that apper to place MOST nationally in such jobs. If you feel, however, that Notre Dame places more nationally than Texas or other programs, I'd certainly be interested in hearing your argument. I don't consider Leiter gospel by any means.

ariesathena · January 23, 2005, 2:18pm

It might be helpful to distinguish different job markets.

There are some, such as Atlanta, with no top 14 l.s. in the city. The best school there is Emory, followed probably by Mercer - but there is a clear difference between them. That's one type of job market: no top 14 school, one top-tier school that clearly dominates.

Then there are the job markets with a top 14 school in the city (Boston, NYC, DC, Chicago) and a plethora of lesser law schools.

Then there are areas like LA, without a top 14 law school but with several other very strong schools in the area (won't start a war by naming them!).

My point is that, if you really want to live in a city like the first kind I mentioned, you should seriously look at the top law school there. While some jobs will obviously go to kids from the top 14 schools, there's really only one game in town.

Likewise, I'll throw out the warning about the legal markets in some towns like Boston. When the market heads south, it's tough to get a job there - even as a BC (clearly quite a respectable school) grad. HLS grads who choose to stay in Boston have their pick of jobs. In short - there's a definite pecking order (can we agree on this?). IMO, it's advantageous to go to the top l.s. in the city you want to practice in. I've heard that, should you want to practice in Philly, you're better off at Villanova than at a school ranked between 15 and 25 - just name recognition, placement, etc.

I'll come back to the legwork thing in a few months, after I finish blanketing my chosen city with resumes, because they don't come on-campus to interview. Personally, I would much rather drop off resumes with career services and wander in for an interview between classes than do the application version of cold-calling a firm and getting myself out there for an interview. That's just me - and maybe it's not as bad as I think it is... but still!

Greybeard · January 25, 2005, 8:35am

The biggest advantage to a highly ranked law school may be not feeling defensive when you're in the company of someone who cares about such things.

Of course, you're free to develop this attitude away from a highly ranked school; it just gets a little easier to develop the higher up the pecking order you go.

Cardozo · January 25, 2005, 4:24pm

"My point is that, if you really want to live in a city like the first kind I mentioned, you should seriously look at the top law school there."

Most definitely -- unless you get into a top national school. The top national schools will almost always place better, in pretty much any region, than top local/regional schools, with the possible exception of Texas, which is itself fairly national.

(Note: Not all Top 14's will always fall into this category. As noted, some of the schools traditionally outside the Top 10 may not surpass schools like UCLA in L.A. However, the most national schools, with the best long-term reputations, pretty much always will.)

"While some jobs will obviously go to kids from the top 14 schools, there's really only one game in town."

Hmm. I'm not sure if you're actually reading the other posts on this thread...

Attorneys in every maket, no matter how parochial, recognize that there are certain schools that have stronger programs and stronger students then their local favorite. Therefore, those students will almost always have opportunities in pretty much any market, and will generally have better opportunities than students from the local school.

"Likewise, I'll throw out the warning about the legal markets in some towns like Boston. When the market heads south, it's tough to get a job there - even as a BC (clearly quite a respectable school) grad. HLS grads who choose to stay in Boston have their pick of jobs. In short - there's a definite pecking order (can we agree on this?)."

Of course. The pecking order is generally: Top national schools, then the school with the best reputation in your region, then the next best, etc. If your local (non T-15) school is especially strong, it may surpass some of the national schools, but it probably won't surpass most.

Your statement supports the idea that when competition is stiff, even local powerhouses may struggle, while more national schools will do better.

"IMO, it's advantageous to go to the top l.s. in the city you want to practice in."

Yes, most definitely. That's why you should go to the top l.s. in the city you want to practice in -- unless you get into a top national program.

If you're choosing between top national schools, it similarly follows that you should probably go to the one located in your desired region.

"I've heard that, should you want to practice in Philly, you're better off at Villanova than at a school ranked between 15 and 25 - just name recognition, placement, etc."

That's probably true. Again your principles certainly apply generally -- just not to the very best schools in the country, with the strongest reputations.

"I'll come back to the legwork thing in a few months, after I finish blanketing my chosen city with resumes, because they don't come on-campus to interview. Personally, I would much rather drop off resumes with career services and wander in for an interview between classes than do the application version of cold-calling a firm and getting myself out there for an interview. That's just me - and maybe it's not as bad as I think it is... but still!"

Of course. This is one reason that people seek out the most national schools, as they generally have a good amount of firms from all regions coming to interview, and they don't usually have to work as hard to get outside interviews.

You do point out a valid fact -- the number of national schools that really trump all local favorites is fairly small, and there are many excellent, relatively national schools that may not surpass local favorites, even though their programs and students are objectively superior. Again, your general principle is valid.

So I certainly agree with you on the general rule -- go to the best school possible in your desired region. However, there's one major exception to this rule, and those are the top national programs.

If you have any doubt about this, feel free to call the students at Emory, or any other strong regional program outside the top 25, and ask them if they would rather be looking for jobs in their market with a degree from a top national.

However, the fact is most student won't have this option -- in which case it's important to remember the general rule, and not get caught up in rankings differences that are eventually less significant.

(From a pure merit standpoint, you could argue that student body quality, etc.., should always play a larger role hiring, regardless of location. However, regional favoritism, alumni contacts, etc. does play a large role, for better or for worse.)

Cardozo · January 25, 2005, 7:13pm

Caveat: Like most people on this thread, I have no real idea what I'm talking about, and this is just the conventional wisdom. I encourage anyone making a relevant decision to contact potential employers and do further research before coming to a decision.

And none of the above changes the fact that if you get a good scholarship offer from the top school in your desired market, it may well make sense to take it over an offer from a "top national". If you do well at a top local, you should have plenty of opportunties, and there are also the logistical benefits that Aries cites. There will in fact be more local interviewers at the local school, and if you're well-placed in the class, you should get offers from a number of them.

ariesathena · January 25, 2005, 9:38pm

We can probably agree on this: for those of us who aren't applying to law schools with a 170+ LSAT and a 3.5+ GPA from a great school, it's good to understand which safety/match schools to apply to. Most of the people who apply to law schools will have to apply to at least one school outside of the top 14... so it's important to recognize the strong regional factors in job placement.

I saw a fairly useful distinction of national (i.e. top 14ish), regional (the UCLAs, Emorys), and sub-regional (schools with both national and strong regional schools there). Obviously, its best to apply to national and strong regional schools - as those are the best for job placement.

Offer always open: I have spreadsheets on a lot of this information, so I can send them along. With the exception of literally two or three schools, there is a definite regional bias in placement. That does not preclude placement elsewhere, but... hey, it can't hurt to swim in the same direction as your fellow students.

jonri · January 25, 2005, 10:58pm

I'm not sure, but I think Leiter must be including branch offices. (Hint: there are no UTexas grads in Jones Day's Cleveland office. There are in its Texas and Washington, D.C. offices.) If so, then I think that it's unfair to have JD represent Cleveland when it has lots of attorneys in its 15 branches.

But even if Leiter isn't including branches, I'm not sure the hiring practices of firms like Jones Day with 16 branches would be the same as those of a Cleveland-only firm. I mean I haven't gone through the interview season since pre-historic times, but I'd suspect that Jones Day would send a couple of representatives of the firm to interview at various law schools and they'd see anyone interested in all 16 offices...or they might split some of the locations and give them to one interviewer and the rest to the other...but JD probably doesn't send 16 different people. So, while the other Cleveland firms might not bother to send an interviewer to Boalt or UTexas because it's probable not that many people at those schools are interested in Cleveland, if a firm like JD which has 5 offices in California and 2 in Texas is going to interview at those schools to fill those jobs, it's probable that it will be willing to see anyone at those schools who is interested in working in Cleveland. So, looking at JD to see what law schools place people in Cleveland firms might give you very distorted results. It may well be the only Cleveland firm that visits those campuses.

I see the "markets" Leiter selects as being determined by where the Vault firms are located and the Vault firm selection process is based on all the offices. Cleveland is smaller than Columbus and a LOT smaller than Indianapolis, but they aren't on the list. Cleveland is the only Midwestern city other than Chicago. Richmond is on the list because Hunton & Williams, another firm with lots of branches, is based there. I mean why else would Richmond be picked as a "major market"? Even Omaha is bigger and that's not on Leiter's list. Again, Hunton & Williams has 16 branch offices, including 2 in Dallas and one in Austin. So, how much effort is it for H&W to interview UTexas applicants for its Richmond office if it's there to hire for its three Texas offices? Does that mean that the other firms in Richmond--a city with fewer than 300,000 people-- bother to to to interview at UTexas when they can probably get lots of well-qualified candidates at UVa?

I wasn't trying to sing Notre Dame's praises. It's just that when I switched the "Midwest" firm from Cleveland to Indianapolis--which I think has about 300,000 more people--Notre Dame did very, very well in part, of course, because its in Indiana.

Again, what Leiter does is interesting, but I don't think it tells you much about anything except where the firms on his list hire people from.

I agree with you that it's worth going to a national firm--though when you get towards the bottom of the top 14, you might be better off going to UTexas if you want to work in Texas and UCLA if you want to work in California. It's not regional vs. national that I think is the problem with Leiter's ratings; I think the problem is with his rankings of the national law schools.

beethoven · January 27, 2005, 11:03pm

How does going to a top law school...like say Harvard or Yale...affect starting salaries? Do graduates from those places (even if they are not at the very top of their class....say top half at least) obtain jobs at top firms that pay well? Does anyone know the average starting salaries of graduates from those schools? Thanks!

Greybeard · January 28, 2005, 2:04am

There are maybe 200 large law firms (maybe less than that), referred to in some circles as "Big Law", that pay their first-year associates in the range of $125K in salary per year. These firms are typically headquartered in New York, L.A., Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Washington D.C., Minneapolis, or a handful of other places. The mix of law schools where each firm interviews varies somewhat, but generally includes ten or more of the top 16 law schools, plus a number of others (particularly the top schools in their particular region).

The percentage of aclass that is offered jobs of this nature tends to drop somewhat as you move down the law school rankings. The percentages change from year to year, depending on the economy.

Someone who's gone through the meat grinder a little more recently than I went through it will have better information about what percentage of the graduates of each school on average go to work for Big Law.

ariesathena · January 28, 2005, 2:29pm

Actually, the best way to answer that question is to direct you to The Princeton Review's Guide to Law Schools (or somethign similar). It has median starting salaries and percentages of students in each area of law (gov't, public interest, academia, clerking, and private sector). Also, graduate US News and World Reports has all of that information for you.

Cardozo · January 28, 2005, 11:09pm

"We can probably agree on this: for those of us who aren't applying to law schools with a 170+ LSAT and a 3.5+ GPA from a great school, it's good to understand which safety/match schools to apply to. Most of the people who apply to law schools will have to apply to at least one school outside of the top 14... so it's important to recognize the strong regional factors in job placement."

Definitely.

Cardozo · January 28, 2005, 11:25pm

"I'm not sure, but I think Leiter must be including branch offices. (Hint: there are no UTexas grads in Jones Day's Cleveland office. There are in its Texas and Washington, D.C. offices.) If so, then I think that it's unfair to have JD represent Cleveland when it has lots of attorneys in its 15 branches."

If this is true, it would certainly hurt his methdological quality, as I noted. On the other hand, it would still be probably be a more national measure than a strict ranking of schools in the largest firms, which would be New-York biased.

"But even if Leiter isn't including branches, I'm not sure the hiring practices of firms like Jones Day with 16 branches would be the same as those of a Cleveland-only firm. "

Maybe not, but top grads do usually want to work at elite firms, which will probably have different hiring practices.

"I see the "markets" Leiter selects as being determined by where the Vault firms are located and the Vault firm selection process is based on all the offices. Cleveland is smaller than Columbus and a LOT smaller than Indianapolis, but they aren't on the list. Cleveland is the only Midwestern city other than Chicago. Richmond is on the list because Hunton & Williams, another firm with lots of branches, is based there. I mean why else would Richmond be picked as a "major market"? Even Omaha is bigger and that's not on Leiter's list. Again, Hunton & Williams has 16 branch offices, including 2 in Dallas and one in Austin. So, how much effort is it for H&W to interview UTexas applicants for its Richmond office if it's there to hire for its three Texas offices? Does that mean that the other firms in Richmond--a city with fewer than 300,000 people-- bother to to to interview at UTexas when they can probably get lots of well-qualified candidates at UVa?"

Yes, but he's still looking at the most elite firms with branches in each region, which seems reasonable.

"Again, what Leiter does is interesting, but I don't think it tells you much about anything except where the firms on his list hire people from."

Well, it does tells you that. And to the extent that these are the largest firms in each region, that would seem pretty relevant to students seeking national opportunities in major firms. (Although, as noted, it should probably be focused on branch offices, if it isn't already.)

"I agree with you that it's worth going to a national firm--though when you get towards the bottom of the top 14, you might be better off going to UTexas if you want to work in Texas and UCLA if you want to work in California. It's not regional vs. national that I think is the problem with Leiter's ratings; I think the problem is with his rankings of the national law schools."

I'm sure his ranking is imperfect in several respects. For one thing, Stanford grads can probably place much more nationally than it does -- most grads probably just prefer to stay in California. But to the extent it corresponds to national reputation ratings, its interesting as a confirmatory tool. What's really needed is a survey of how the major firms in each city really perceive top schools -- both national and local. GPA cutoff info would be even more helpful. That would help students know the true relative advantages of attending a given school.

Cardozo · January 28, 2005, 11:32pm

"How does going to a top law school...like say Harvard or Yale...affect starting salaries? Do graduates from those places (even if they are not at the very top of their class....say top half at least) obtain jobs at top firms that pay well? Does anyone know the average starting salaries of graduates from those schools? Thanks!"

It affects salaries (and job prospects in general) significantly.

Placing in the top half of most top 14 schools should allow you to obtain a high-paying job without too much difficulty. Even if you don't do that well, you'll probably eventually find a pretty decent job.

(Most grads from a top national schools appear to make close to 125K a year.)

The only problem with guides like Princeton Review is that much information from law schools, especially outside the top schools, is self-reported, and therefore not exactly reliable. Schools have a distinct incentive to inflate both the amount of grads working, and how much they're making. So I'd take such figures with a large grain of salt, with the size of the grain increasing the further one goes down the rankings.

Thread		Replies	Views
Ranking Over Money Law School	18	102	April 15, 2021
Getting into Top Law Schools? Law School	28	446	April 15, 2021
Admissions - UCLA and USC vs. Fordham and Brooklyn Law School	2	116	April 15, 2021
Does undergrad prestige really matter for grad school? Applying to College	88	615	April 16, 2021
Choosing a Law School...$$$ Law School	4	54	April 15, 2021

Advantage of ranked Law Schools?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

Advantage of ranked Law Schools?

Related Topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US