<ol>
<li><p>UCLA is ranked #15 by U.S. News. The top schools are always referred to as the "top 14." Why did UCLA just happen to miss the cut-off point? Why isn't it top 15? And does UCLA really look that much worse from the top 14?</p></li>
<li><p>UC Irvine is so far unaccredited, but they want to be accredited soon. And they say that when they do, they want to be in the top 20. Is that actually reasonable for them to jump all the way up from unaccredited to top 20 in such a small amount of time? They're actually well within my range, which is why I'm wondering.</p></li>
<li><p>UC Hastings is, I believe, the only UC law school that's also not an undergrad school. So you'd think it would be one of the best law schools. However, it seems to be ranked the lowest (in fifth place out of five, under Berkeley, UCLA, Davis, and Irvine too if you count that). Why would they only have law school and be the worst law school?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks in advance, I've been wondering these things for a long time!</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Every one in the top 14 has at one time been in the top 10 of the rankings, so in essence it’s a Top 10/14 list (kinda like Big 10/11).</p></li>
<li><p>UCI might crack a high ranking when it first hits, but unlikely to hold it. UCI gave full rides in Year 1, so it bought students with great stats (gpa+lsat). UCI is a state schools, so they’ll have to start charging full tuition soon, so its student numbers are likely to go down. And student numbers are part of the rankings formula…</p></li>
<li><p>Search for the rankings methodology used by USNews and you’ll understand better #2 above, and the answer to #3. (btw: Hasting is a public school, and the Regents don’t focus on rankings as much as they focus on other stuff. Cal is a grad school beast, as good as H in practically every department.)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>UCLA is a very young law school relative to the other top law schools, if you think about it it’s done exceptionally well given its age. </p>
<p>As for Hastings, it has this really weird relationship with the UCs because of the restrictions imposed along with its founding. Not sure if that has anything to do with its eh ranking. Also, Hastings may be in San Francisco but the area Hastings is located in isn’t a nice part of SF, that could be a possible reason why more competitive students would prefer to go elsewhere over Hastings.</p>
<p>i think hastings’ ranking is also due to them not playing the numbers/rankings games.</p>
<p>they were in the 20’s to 30’s and if i remember correctly didn’t turn in any numbers to us news for a year and since then has steadily declined in the ranks. they’ve recently got a new dean and have started trying to boost their rank.</p>
<p>Those law schools that are in the top 14 have essentially been there forever. Historical fact is that those were considered the top 14 generally beginning long berfore USNews first concocted the idea of rankings. In other words, it will take some unknown giant leap for a school outside of the 14 to ever break into it.</p>
<p>Much appreciated, guys. I was also wondering about how the top 14 law schools are considered “portable.” That is, you generally should not have much difficulty getting a job anywhere in the United States if you went to any of the top 14, if I am understanding it correctly. However, everything below the top 14 is limited somewhat more locally. I’ve heard that you’re pretty much confined to practice law not far from where you graduated if you go to a law school that isn’t ranked high enough and you were not at the top of the class.</p>
<p>Well, I was wondering to what extent that applies to the UCs. Okay, so Stanford and Berkeley are both in the top 14, so it’s already obvious that you’re not glued to the spot. But what about schools like UCLA? If you go to UCLA or Irvine, are you pretty much stuck in Southern California? And if you go to Davis or Hastings, are you pretty much stuck in Northern California? Or is mobility actually more flexible than that? Because I want to live in Southern California for a long time, and I’m just afraid that if I go to Davis or Hastings, that I won’t be able to find any job in Southern California (assuming I’m not at the top of the class). NorCal is cool, but I have more friends and family in SoCal.</p>
<p>If you want to work in SoCal, UCLA or USC (“Trojan Family”) would be the schools of choice (outside of the 14), or UCI if you can get big $$ from them, and graduate debt free. Or, USD for San Diego.</p>
<p>Does the “regionality” of the law schools in California even extend to the county levels? i.e.</p>
<p>Northern California = UC Davis, UC Hastings
Los Angeles County = UCLA, USC
Orange County = UC Irvine
San Diego County = USD</p>
<p>And of course, Anywhere = Stanford and UC Berkeley because they’re in the top 14</p>
<p>Because I kind of like Los Angeles. I know that Orange County is not far from it, but I wouldn’t want to go to UC Irvine and then find out when it’s too late that I can only stay in Orange County and not move to Los Angeles County.</p>
<p>If you pull up attorney profiles for major Orange County law firms, you will see that they are full of Boalt, Stanford, UCLA and USC law school grads, with undergraduate degrees from all over the country (lots of USC and UCLA, if you had to pick the two most common).</p>
<p>perhaps you misread; I was stating a fact: there are a LOT of 'SC alums in Orange County. (And, for that matter, a lot of 'SC Frosh attended HS in The OC.)</p>