<p>do people generally only regard the top 14 law schools as "elite"? or are texas and ucla also associated with this group, making it more like a top 16? or do those two schools form the next level of law schools along with GWU, Wash U, vandy, USC, etc.?</p>
<p>Personally, I view these two law schools as making up a group of their own, in between the top 14 and the remainder of the top 20 or so. Academically, I think UCLA and UTexas really are as good as most of those in the 7-14 range. However, they are both essentially regional law schools in terms of both the areas from which they draw applicants and the areas in which grads practice. </p>
<p>Before our friendly local neighborhood "cut and paster from Leiter's site" weighs in, let me note that Leiter's "national" employment ratings include both Houston and Dallas, which makes UT look very good. But if you looked at UT's placement outside of Texas, it really just isn't as good as schools like Northwestern, Duke, or Cornell. Of course, if you want to work in Houston and are a Texas resident, I think you'd be better off going to Texas.</p>
<p>Leiter is certainly a Texas troll. </p>
<p>However, Texas is still more national, in many respects, than Cornell or even Boalt. (Texas does pretty well in NYC, for example.) </p>
<p>Personally, I think schools like Gtown, etc., have more in common with Texas and UCLA than they do with most traditional top 10 schools, but that's just me. (I'd probably choose UCLA over Gtown or Duke, but I'd also like to work in California.) </p>
<p>(PS: Check out the reputation study I posted on the other side, which would seem to argue for a "Top 16".)</p>
<p>Texas is more national than Boalt? Perhaps its graduates have more incentive to travel.</p>
<p>After all, why leave Lotus Land?</p>
<p>There's a top 1, a top 2, a top 3, a top 10 (several actually), a top 14, and a top 16. There's a top tier, a top gun, and a top dog.</p>
<p>"... A number one, king of the hill, top of the heap..."</p>
<p>But there's only one "you".</p>
<p>There's no question that self-selection plays a major role in how "national" a school actually places. Stanford is barely in the top 6, I believe. That doesn't mean it's grads couldn't go pretty much anywhere if they chose to, though.</p>
<p>I think this top 14 or top 16 stuff is nonsense. From what I've heard, its basically Harvard and Yale above everything else, and then one should go to best law school in the region he wants to be in.</p>
<p>Actually I've heard Stanford is a solid third and the reason why its top 14 rather than anything else is that the schools in the top 14 of the rankings have remained consistent. There are other justifications, like these schools are the only ones with truly national reputations and there's a gulf between #14 and #15, but take from those what you will.</p>
<p>If you look at national reputation, as measured by USNews, there are a number of schools that get ratings comparable to Harvard and Yale, with Stanford rated as good or better than these two schools. (Because of it's smaller class size, Stanford placement is probably even more secure than Harvard placement.) Most of the traditional top ten is among this group. </p>
<p>Therefore, there are a number of national programs that will probably place better than top regional schools, unless the "best school in the region" also happens to be a top national school (like Texas). </p>
<p>On the other hand, there's not much difference in the national reputation ratings of Texas/UCLA and some top 14 schools, which would argue for their inclusion. </p>
<p>In terms of consistency, I think UCLA and Texas have always been ranked in the top 16, although they have swapped the 15 spot, which would only argue against having a consistent top 15. </p>
<p>Ultimately, I would view UCLA and Texas as somewhat less national in reputation and placement than most top 14 schools, but perhaps comparable in their own regions to many top 14 schools. I would also attend UCLA over many other regional powerhouses based largely on location, weather, and environment. (If I was really concerned with faculty quality, etc., I'd also attend Texas over other regional powerhouses.)</p>
<p>I'm aware that there are some schools with national reps, but my point remains the same, only Yale and Harvard can overcome the regional bias. Yes Stanford is an awesome school, but if you want to work in NY, would you take Stanford or Columbia/NYU?..its probably a toss up where you can argue both ways, but NYU/Columbia without a doubt have a stronger presence in Manhattan. With Harvard and Yale, there is no arguing both ways, you get accepted to one of them, its simple-you go, regardless of regional considerations.</p>
<p>Hey, JW. </p>
<p>I think you're mistaken on some basic points. First off, I don't know anyone that wouldn't consider Stanford comparable to Harvard these days. It's been ranked higher than Harvard in U.S. News for most of the last decade, and actually has a higher reputation rating than Yale among lawyers and judges. Therefore, following your logic, one would at least choose Stanford over Harvard if seeking employment on the West Coast. However, the truth is that all three are national powerhouses which will generally trump even the other national schools. </p>
<p>I've already noted that the "regional" bias may persist if one top national school is up against another, local one. However, Stanford, like Harvard, will also generally trump NYU and Columbia in Manhattan. The latter schools may certainly have a stronger "presence" in New York, in terms of alumni contacts. However, Stanford will still have a stronger reputation overall, and will therefore generally be more desired. This is especially true when you realize that NYU and Columbia flood the local market with graduates every year. In light of this, most recruiters will likely prefer the relatively rare Stanford grad, as opposed to the dime-a-dozen NYU/Columbia grad. </p>
<p>This is why most people would say that if you get into HYS, you go, regardless of regional considerations (unless maybe you get a full-ride at another top national). And this is also the same reason most people would say that if you get into a top 14, you go, regardless of regional considerations (unless maybe you get a full ride at a top regional, or are accepted to UCLA/Texas.) </p>
<p>However, this issue is discussed more thoroughly in the "Advantage of Ranked Law Schools" thread, if you want to review it.</p>
<p>Calm down there Cardozo, I never said Stanford wasn't a good school. I know full well Stanford is an excellent law school and you made some good points. That being said, let me just first say that I speak from an outsider's perspective, I'm not a lawyer (though I know plenty, and may even do the law school thing someday); I used to work in investment banking, and I now work at a hedge fund. </p>
<p>Yes, I'm sure people who read the US News law school rankings religiously may buy into this stuff of a top 14 or 16 or 27 or whatever, but if you ask someone like me who has never even looked at any law school ranking for more than 30 seconds what the best law schools are..the answer will be Yale and Harvard (no offense to Stanford), and after that I probably couldn't even name the top 10...that was my only point here. I work in Manhattan, I've met and dealt with many corporate lawyers, and it seems like most of them went to Harvard, Yale, or a few local NY schools (as a side note, one of the prinicpals where I work is a Fordham law grad and makes an income mulitple times what any law firm partner from a top school does...I'm guessing a top 14 rank outside of Harvard and Yale means even less for non legal jobs, and regional factors may play in more). My friends from undergrad who went to law school pretty much all considered Yale the best school in the country and the hardest to get into, and Harvard to be second....after those 2, NYU and Columbia were the most sought after (yes I know, its probably just an east coast bias since thats where I did my undergrad, but thats my point). </p>
<p>I understand Stanford grads are a rarer species on the east coast and would no doubt have a lot of options if they come out here, but I still think Harvard and Yale are much better at trumping a regional bias than Stanford or any other top ranked school is....eg, would you really take UCLA over U of Georgia if you wanted to work in Atlanta?? Also having more alumni from your school in a city may be a good thing in the long run (networking, future business connnections, etc) even if it initially makes you a dime a dozen compared to a graduate from a top ranked school that traditionally does not send its students your way. Thats just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>Hey, JW. </p>
<p>I actually wan't that excited, but I'm glad if my writing conveys passion! ;^)</p>
<p>I understand you're not an expert (or claiming to be), and I wasn't being critical of you for your viewpoint. If I disgree with a statement and seek to clarify it, it's only because there are applicants on the board, and it's important that they have accurate info. </p>
<p>I guess what I would say is that there is a big difference between what the average person thinks, and what people in the legal industry believe. The idea of a "Top 3", and a "Top 10" has been around for a long time, and pretty much every big-firm lawyer knows what these schools are. </p>
<p>This isn't just from USNews, either. If you read Scott Turow's book "One L", from 1975, he lists Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, Boalt, Penn, NYU, and UVa as the top schools in the country. These are the same schools usually ranked highest in USNews, or in any other ranking of top schools at top firms, top clerkships, most national in placement, etc. (With Stanford having risen to even greater prominence over the last 30 years.) </p>
<p>Also, if you read pretty much any book on where you should go to school, most authors (including law professors at top schools, etc.) will agree that you should go to one of these top "national" schools if at all possible, regardless of desired market, because they will simply carry more prestige than most other programs, which is important in terms of clerkships, jobs, etc. And again, lawyers at all top firms in the country know these schools are the best, and have the brightest students, regardless of where that firm is located. </p>
<p>So, everything else being equal, you will generally have better opportunities from those schools, even where a regional school has a strong local reputation. </p>
<p>Now, your undergrad friends understandably may value NYU and Columbia even higher than the legal community does (and they're obviously top schools either way). But they're not the ones doing the hiring. Hiring partners generally know that Stanford grads are considered more desireable, and will usually favor them -- especially if they're more rare in a given market. </p>
<p>(Again though, generally speaking, where both schools are national, and also comparable, it may be better to choose the one in your desired market.)</p>
<p>Actual representation isn't really the issue here. For example, Chicago is more national in placement than Yale, according to at least one study. However, that doesn't mean that Yale couldn't place more nationally -- it probably just means that more Yale grads, for whatever reason, prefer to stay in the Northeast. For the same reason, given that Stanford gets higher marks among lawyers and judges than Yale, Stanford grads could probably place just as nationally as Yale or Harvard, if they weren't already located in a very desirable region. (This is probably the same reason Columbia and NYU are less national in placement than UVA.) </p>
<p>In light of the above, there's simply no reason to assume that Harvard and Yale would be better at trumping regional bias than Stanford, especially since they appear to be considered essentially identical by most lawyers and judges. (Stanford is actually considerd a more desirable destination these days by most applicants, at least as far as I've seen. The fact that it has a small class makes quality placement more secure, and, given that they're of comparable quality, the better weather and environment and Palo Alto is also a strong draw.) </p>
<p>It's true that these three schools are probably better at trumping regional bias than the rest of the top 14. It's also probably true that certain other schools in the top 14 are better at trumping regional bias than remaining top 14 schools. But most schools in the top 14 will in fact trump regional schools, even most top regional schools. </p>
<p>(As noted, schools like UCLA and Texas may be best viewed in a third category. I'm not sure if UCLA places better than Georgia in Atlanta or not. However, I'd certainly study at UCLA if given the option, because it has better students and a better faculty, and will still probably impress some Georgia people. However, UCLA is still far less national than the more national schools in the Top 14, so it's really not an apt example. For example, there's no question that a Columbia, Chicago, or Virginia grad would place better than a Georgia grad in Atlanta.) </p>
<p>This is not to completely denigrate the importance of alumni connections. In fact, this is why it makes extremely good sense to simply attend the best school in your region -- IF you don't get into a top national program. The reasons for this are as you state: local reputation, alumni connections, networking, etc. -- all relevant and important. In light of these factors, it would make little sense to choose a school ranked 40th, located far away, over a school ranked 50th, located in your desired market. </p>
<p>But again, there are certain schools that simply hold a special place in the minds of most attorneys. This is difficult to understand unless you spend a lot of time studying the issue, but law is simply a very heirarchal and prestige-oriented profession. This is why you want to go to the BEST school in your region, and not just any school in your region. It's also why you want to do as well as possible in your class. And, finally, it's why you should generaly take an offer from any top program if you get one -- because such degrees are automatically considered a designation of quality and ability, and will therefore make you marketable no matter where you work. (Unless you're simply head over heels in love with a top regional program, know you want to stay there, and/or get a good scholarship.)</p>
<p>Think about it this way. If Harvard trumps regional bias with a 4.8 national reputation rating among lawyers and judges, and Yale trumps regional bias with a 4.7 national reputation rating, then wouldn't Stanford also probably trump regional bias with a 4.8 national reputation rating? And given that almost all schools outside the top 16 have a national reputation below 4.0, with the overwhelming majority below 3.5, then wouldn't at least those other top schools schools rated within a few points of Harvard probably trump regional bias?</p>
<p>In other words, just as Harvard and Yale have a special, "trump" value in the minds of most attorneys, there are a number of other schools that do as well -- even if HYS are the preeminent among them. And for most attorneys, all these schools will have more in common with each other than with regional schools. </p>
<p>(For the layman, it's not surprising that Harvard and Yale would stand out as the top national schools -- especially in the Northeast. Everyone's heard of these schools in other contexts. But among actual attorneys, the true national "elite" is somewhat broader.) </p>
<p>Now, let me empahsize -- this doesn't mean you CAN'T be successful coming from a regional powerhouse -- you unquestionably can, though class rank may be more important for your first job. (The same, of course, is true of lower-ranked regional schools, but with class rank even more important for your first job.) It just means it will probably be easier coming from a top national. </p>
<p>Again, however, this is discussed more on the "Advantage of Ranked Law Schools" thread. </p>
<p>(And I encourage anyone with questions on this issue to read as much as possible about it, contact legal employers in their desired region, and contact students at relevant schools for their opinions as well. There's no substitute for actual research.)</p>