are top law schools not recoqnized because they aren't ivy league?

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>someone told me that a school like university of minnesota-twin cities has a top ranked law program, but firms or top firms won't reconqnize it because it isn't a top 20 school. is this true? will a top firm not recoqnize a minnesota lawyer because the university is not ivy league, and if not then what are the advantages of even attending minnesota law school that you could not attain at university of arkansas law school?</p>

<p>is it that no matter how top ranked the law school, it's meaningless to top firms because the university is not ivy league or top ranked? what firms will hire a minnesota lawyer? what are the advantages to a minnesota lawyer?</p>

2

<p><em>top 20 ranked</em></p>

3

<p>Ivy doesn't really have anything to do with ranking. NYU, Michigan, Virginia, etc. are considered roughly on par with Penn, Columbia, etc. </p>

<p>University of Minnesota actually is a top-20 school (it's ranked 20th) and is definitely competitive with places like BU, George Washington, and similarly ranked schools. I applied to Minnesota and would have been happy to go..I love the city and don't mind the cold. </p>

<p>a good way to see which firms will hire you from there is to look at which firms recruit at minnesota...i forget how to do this but there's a web site. </p>

<p>one thing you need to consider is the regional reputation of basically all schools outside the top 5-10 (and even within that range). Yes, you can get a job anywhere in the country with a harvard or stanford degree, but if you're set on the west coast you're probably better off at stanford because there are more alums in the area. if you want to work in the south, you might be better off at Alabama than Minnesota, even if minnesota's higher-ranked (you'd probably be even better off at Emory or Duke, though). If you want to work in the midwest, Minnesota's probably one of the best options (northwestern, university of chicago, umich are obviously good choices too).</p>

4

<p>Though I may not be able to "prove it" to your satisfaction, the 14 law schools which USNews ranks as the top 14 are the only ones generally considered "national" law schools. They are well-known throughout the US. Just "below" them are two other law schools which most experts consider just as good academically, but which draw most of their students from the surrounding area. These are UCLA and UTexas. </p>

<p>While the order in which US News ranks these changes from year to year, those 16 law schools have been regarded as the best 16 law school in the US for at least the past 30 years. </p>

<p>Once you get below these 16, the law schools really aren't national. Except for people who memorize US News' annual rankings, most folks out there, including practicing lawyers and judges, know zilch about any law schools that aren't in their own region. Thus, while UMinn is a fine law school, most folks in other parts of the country won't know that. </p>

<p>So, many people advise students that they should go to one of the top 14 if they can get in, to go to UCLA (unless they get into Stanford or Berkeley) if they want to work in California and to UTexas if they want to work in Texas. If they don't get into any of these 16, then many people advise students to go to the best law school in the region in which you want to practice.</p>

<p>PS. I hadn't read Stacy's response thoroughly before I posted. I'm basically agreeing, except that I draw the line a bit lower than she does. I think most lawyers and attorneys anywhere in the nation are aware that Georgetown, Northwestern and Cornell are top law schools. </p>

<p>In fact, I personally don't think there really is a group of the "top 10" law schools. Instead, the tiers are (1) Yale, Harvard, Stanford, (2) Columbia, Chicago, NYU; (3) UMich-AA, Berkeley/Boalt, UPenn, UVa, Northwestern, Cornell, Duke, and Georgetown, (4) UCLA and UTexas.</p>

5

<p>I agree with what's been said. Going to Minnesota will give you as good a shot at any Twin Cities or midwestern law firm as any non-T14 student and, depending on your class rank, as good a shot as a T14 student. If you finish in the top 10%, you would have a chance to work pretty much anywhere in the country.</p>

<p>The site that lets you see which firms recruit at different schools is <a href="http://www.nalpdirectory.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nalpdirectory.com&lt;/a>. But you should be cautious when using the NALP site, because some firms use grade cut-offs at lower-ranked schools (i.e. they won't interview you if your GPA is below a certain level) and at many schools, the majority of students don't get jobs through the on-campus interview process.</p>

6

<p>thanks.....</p>

7

<p>the average starting salary for Minnesota law school grads are lower then a lot of the other top schools for some reason.</p>

8

<p>Law firms that recruit nationally know which are the best regarded law schools. They make it their business to know. Whether a law firm in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or Miami (or anywhere else for that matter) recruits at any particular school is often partially a function of geography. </p>

<p>Using the example of the law school at the University of Minnesota, no doubt it is a very well regarded school. I'm sure that there are many employers who come on campus to interview students there. Due to geographic differences, though, there are probably more Chicago, Minneapolis and Milwaukee based law firms interviewing there on campus than there are firms from the coasts. I believe that U Minn law school also holds some kind of special recruiting event in Washington DC for its students who wish to work on the east coast. Their career office can probably tell you who recruits on campus. As for starting salary differences at U Minn law school, they are probably attributable to geographic differences in where graduates go to work (e.g. firms in the mid-west may pay less than law firms in New York or LA). I don't think they are indicative of anything more that that -- geography.</p>

9

<p>"the average starting salary for Minnesota law school grads are lower then a lot of the other top schools for some reason."</p>

<p>probably because relatively few people end up working at firms in NY, DC, LA, etc. compared to other law schools, and those are the cities where salaries are highest. I really don't think GW is a better law school than Minnesota, nor does it have better students--it just has more students who like DC and will end up working there and thus earning DC-style salaries. </p>

<p>when you look at what the average starting salary of a lawyer in the Twin Cities can buy, for example, vs. what the average starting salary of DC lawyers can buy in that metro area (i'm thinking in terms of real estate, the desire to send kids to private school, fancy restaurants, recreation) I think you'd find that you're not really at a disadvantage working in smaller cities.</p>

10

<p>My D got into three schools in the 15-20 range, including University of Minnesota and the University of Texas. She also got into Washington University in St. Louis. Although Texas is ranked higher, she has been told that 65% of the students come from Texas and most end up working there. She was also told that Wash U has the more national reputation, by many people but by many others was told she would basically get the same job coming out of any of the three schools! She has not yet made her decision. Prevailing wisdom seems to be that top 10 law schools are what count the most. And in the 11-20 range, it really doesn't matter which one you go to.</p>

11

<p>well, i thought about it and chicago firms most likely recruit at university of minnesota because of it's top rank so a minnesota lawyer probably does have an edge. also even if there wasn't an edge, a minnesota lawyer will have more knowledge on law than a rutgers lawyer because of it's rank. </p>

<p>what do you think?</p>

12

<p>I don't mean to be rude, but momof5's statement that " in the 11-20 range, it really doesn't matter which one you go to" is just NOT true. </p>

<p>It matters a LOT. It doesn't matter BELOW the top 14, unless you want to practice in Texas or California--see my comments in a post above in this thread. But there is a BIG difference between attending Duke, Northwestern, Cornell, or Georgetown-- which are the law schools in the 11-14 spots--and attending USCal, Vanderbilt, UMinn, George Washington, or WUSTL, which are in the 17-20 spots. (I might not have them in the right order.) This is especially true in you do NOT want to stay in the same geographic area. </p>

<p>And MBA/Finance : You don't have "more knowledge on law" depending upon the law school you attend. It's highly probable that you will have more knowledge of MINNESOTA law because more law schools often offer courses on local law. If you go to Rutgers, you'll have an opportunity to learn more Jersey law. As to the edge, again, it depends upon where you want to practice. A Minn lawyer would probably have an edge in Chicago, in Philly...I'm not so sure.</p>

13

<p>thanks jonri, but how would you not get a better law education if minnesota is ranked 19. i mean, i don't think that rank is meaningless. i could imagine you'd learn more about law at minnesota than the university of arkansas. unless you mean it's ranked that way because you'd learn more about minnesota law at twin cities, than you would about jersey law at rutgers. but that's a dull way to rank a school.</p>

14

<p>"i could imagine you'd learn more about law at minnesota than the university of arkansas. unless you mean it's ranked that way because you'd learn more about minnesota law at twin cities, than you would about jersey law at rutgers."</p>

<p>That's not accurate. You don't necessarily learn "more law" at any one law school versus another. There are many differences between law schools, among them class size, reputation/teaching skills of professors, intelligence/capacity to practice law in your fellow students (assuming that the LSAT results mean what they are supposed to mean), quality and breadth of library collections, reputation of school, job placement success, etc. That doesn't mean that you learn more about law at Minnesota than Arkansas or Rutgers. It may mean that you learn differently or that you have different opportunities as a result of having gone to a higher ranked law school. Many brilliant lawyers come from schools that are not in the top 20 of whatever list purports to rank law schools. </p>

<p>The real truth is that you don't learn much about being a lawyer in law school. In law school, you learn how to think like a lawyer. You learn how to approach a problem, to do legal research and to anticipate both sides of an argument. There is a steep learning curve in law practice, and you will learn most of what you need to know about practicing law AFTER you graduate when you begin working as a lawyer, whatever area of practice you enter.</p>

15

<p>im not in the field, but i know tons of people who are currently in law school. basically, outside of the top 10, it doesnt matter what school it is, but WHERE it is. for example, in CT, uconn law is extremely prestigious; i have a friend who is at miami law because he wants to practice in florida. i have another friend who only applied to law schools in the pacific northwest, even though she could get into the most prestigious schools, because thats where she wants to live.</p>

16

<p>jonri said </p>

<p>
[quote]

It matters a LOT. It doesn't matter BELOW the top 14, unless you want to practice in Texas or California--see my comments in a post above in this thread. But there is a BIG difference between attending Duke, Northwestern, Cornell, or Georgetown-- which are the law schools in the 11-14 spots--and attending USCal, Vanderbilt, UMinn, George Washington, or WUSTL, which are in the 17-20 spots. (I might not have them in the right order.) This is especially true in you do NOT want to stay in the same geographic area.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>everything I've read makes it sound like the top 14-15 is more telling than just the top 10, unless the top 10 is a loose measure including more than 10 actual schools. Other than that, what you say makes sense, huskem55- geography is critical.</p>

17

<p>I agree with Jonri regarding the importance of ranking, especially in the top 14/16. In addition to enhanced law firm recruiting, the top 16 also place more clerks with Supreme Court and circuit court judges. Among lawyers and law schools, that's an important measure of the value of the legal education at these institutions.</p>

<p>I also agree with Sallyawp and Jonri that the rank of the law school doesn't by itself mean that you will learn more law there than at a lower ranked law school. In my state, Texas, you will likely learn far more law at Baylor Law School or Texas Tech Law School, both of which do an excellent job teaching fundamental practice skills. The University of Texas curriculum has practical aspects but, like the other top programs, focuses on traditional legal analysis and modes of reasoning. In short, you learn to think like a lawyer. It sounds simple but it isn't.</p>

18

<p>Most law schools don't train you to be a lawyer specifically, but they teach you to think and act like a lawyer. At least that is how I've always seen it.</p>

19

<p>I'll partly disagree with jonri.</p>

<p>As was said, a law school's reputation is largely a matter of region. Yes, the Ivy League school are regarded by LARGE firms and northeastern firms as 'national law schools.' But local schools of course hold an advantage, even an advantage over the Ivy law schools in the local market for jobs in most regions out of the northeast. A lot of Ivy League lawyers end up in the Boston-to-Washington coridor, doing financial or federal work. But much of the legal power in the commerical/political affairs of Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta and Dallas is held by firms who overwhelmingly employ the alumni of the best schools in their individual states. The law is still a chummy business. Especially in the big or corporate firms. Less so since the fallout of the early 90s when firms had to pinch their budgets when corporate clients began to scrutinize their legal bills, but it's still a chummy profession.</p>

<p>Do not confuse "prestige" with reputation. If you want to be a corporate lawyer (mergers etc.), then Columbia is the place for you. If martime law and the business of ports/shipping is your goal, then you would be well-served by either Tulane or Seattle University. Look to U of Minnesota for family law and gender discrimination. Human/constitutional rights? Then head back to Columbia or Harvard. Do you get my point? A friend with an Ivy League pedigree is a former Law School Dean. He readily acknowledges the special opportunities at the Ivy League law schools. But he said that after that, there are SEVERAL, about 30, high quality law schools and the difference among them is essentially insignificant. Even the U.S. Supreme Court is being admonished to broaden the pool of schools from which it selects clerks.</p>

20

<p>Law is also a prestige-obsessed field. I don't think the "advantage" that local schools have is really worth all that much when you take self-selection into account. Certainly I wouldn't tell somebody to head to UIUC instead of Penn even if they wanted to work in Chicago. </p>

<p>I wouldn't tell somebody to go to Minnesota for "family law and gender discrimination" unless they wanted to go into family law in Minnesota. Even then, they shouldn't be turning down Harvard.</p>