<p>Rankings</a> - Best Law Schools - Graduate Schools - Education - US News and World Report</p>
<p>The leaked version was right but this is the full list.</p>
<p>Any significant changes?</p>
<p>Gwu 28 -> 20
asu 55 -> 38</p>
<p>[Top</a> 2010 Law School Rankings](<a href=“http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html]Top”>Law School Rankings)</p>
<p>If the 2009 #s in Oyama’s list are accurate–OUCH for SUNY Buffalo, which went fom #85to third tier. </p>
<p>Some of the minor movements are actually important. Cardozo dropping from 49 to 52 means it can no longer claim to be one of the top 50 law schools. </p>
<p>I remember a few years back when Syracuse made the top 100 and put that on all their marketing info for the law school. The following year, it dropped out of the top 100 and the material couldn’t be used. This year, it’s ranked #86–hope they didn’t throw out those marketing materials!</p>
<p>Quick question about the USN rankings.</p>
<p>The law specialties they rank, are they they only different specialties that law schools have? Is there no corporate/business law specialty?</p>
<p>Also, which trumps the other? Say I got into a top ranking International Law law school, but I also get into a very good school that’s in the “Best Law Schools” listing, but not in the International Law listing, which would should I go to? One example is if I get accepted to NYU (number 1 in their international law rankings) but also into Cal or Chicagos law school. Which would be a better choice to make? The top international law school, or one of the top general law schools?</p>
<p>IMO, it’s the overall rankings that matter. However, when you are talking about schools like NYU, Cal, and UChicago, they are all on the same level, so in that case, factoring a specialty ranking into your decision makes more sense.</p>
<p>If you live in CA and want to practice in CA would Berkeley be better or Cornell? Cornell is IVY while Berkeley isn’t. But in CA does it not matter? Likewise for NY, and, to take it further, lets say you end up in Chicago, which would serve better overall nationally? Hmm can anyone answer this?</p>
<p>“If you live in CA and want to practice in CA would Berkeley be better or Cornell?”</p>
<p>Berkeley has better national placement than Cornell. If you want to work in California and have in-state tuition, I wouldn’t even consider Cornell over Berkeley.</p>
<p>Berkeley’s better overall AND more local. Seems like a no-brainer.</p>
<p>“Berkeley has better national placement than Cornell”.</p>
<p>Everyplace? The only reason I ask is, I used to work in investment banking in NYC, worked with lots of lawyers at the big firms there quite a lot, and off hand I can’t remember working with anyone who went to Berkeley law school.</p>
<p>I certainly would not presume to say you’re wrong, but people might want to check into its NYC placement if they care.</p>
<p>The other thing I would ask is what does “placement” mean. there is a difference between correlation and causation. If students at your law school have, on average, somewhat higher undergrad GPA and LSAT than at another school, and then also do slightly better overall at more selective firms,as an aggregate. the result can be attributed to be an inevitable consequence of the inputs, which does not in itself necessarily connote any school-name effect or have any implication for your individual result. If the school is good enough to get you an interview, then your placement will depend on your individual merits,won’t it? I mean there are people from all these 'good schools" at "good firms, some are more represented than others but some classes are on the whole stronger than others too. But there is a dstribution of capabilites existing at each school as well, and employers are not idiots and understand this, that is why not everyone from one school is only getting the exact same job offer. Some students there are better, and do better. So ultimately, past a certain school quality threshold such that firms are interviewing there, your placement depends mostly on you, no?</p>
<p>I think it’d be an interesting question to ask in NYC. And I’m betting that upstate NY, Cornell wins. I think.</p>
<p>But fortunately the OP is in a situation that renders both questions moot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley’s in-state tuition is no longer that compelling… at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) The investment banks in New York tend to hire the traditional Wall Street Law Firms like Wachtell, Sullivan & Cromwell, Davis Polk, etc. Those firms, while they do recruit at Boalt, traditionally get their students from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and NYU. The fewer Boalt students is partly because of self-selection (generally, people who choose Boalt want to end up on the west coast), partly because of the selectivity of the aforementioned firms (they’ll only take from the top of the class at Boalt, but are definitely more lenient at Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, and NYU), and partly because of geography (these firms can afford to send a team of partners to recruit at the east coast schools, while it’s hard to justify sending more then a few to Boalt or Stanford because of the travel time and low yield; thus, fewer students are recruited).</p>
<p>In terms of Cornell vs. Boalt with respect to the above firms, Boalt is definitely the better pick. Cornell is no better at placing students at those firms, you have to do extremely well at the school to get a job there, and your competition at those firms is higher because most of Cornell’s class targets NYC. At Boalt, the cut-offs might be slightly lower, but I’m willing to bet that the competition for NYC is not nearly as tough.</p>
<p>I should say, though, that basing your choices on whether you’ll be able to work at a top NYC firm is bad to begin with. I’m just dispelling the notion that Boalt doesn’t place students at top NYC firms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and no. Your school-name not only implies what firms will recruit at your school, but how deeply into the class they’ll dig. Thus, if you’re in the top 30% of your class at Boalt, your chances of landing a gig at Davis Polk are not that high. But, if you’re top 30% at Columbia, you have a decent shot. In this scenario, you did all you can do, but your school put you out of the running. </p>
<p>And 2009 OCI was indicative of this result. Offers not only decreased across the board, but it was increasingly the case that the same kids were getting the same offers. </p>
<p>I should say, though, that personality counts for a lot in this economy, so while grades+school are not necessarily a sufficient condition for an offer, a good personality is most certainly a necessary condition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve seen Cornell’s firm grade grids. The NYC firms demand a lot from the school, and some top NYC offices didn’t even interview there (recall, their OCI is actually held in NYC). I wouldn’t be surprised if firms were willing to dig slightly deeper at Boalt, and I’ve seen some hiring manual cutoffs at some firms that indicate that this is the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. First, the school you attend determines which firms come to OCI in the first place. Second, it determines whether OCI is held on campus. Some law schools offer OCI in major cities. The students travel from the school to the city where they want to work and the employers in that city come to a hotel or some such over the space of 2-3 days and interview that particular law school’s students. At the top LS, the firms come to campus. Not only cheaper for students, but they can keep going to classes. </p>
<p>Second, some LSs don’t allow employers to “pre-screen” applicants. They may not allow them–except for US government–to ask for a transcript either. So, any student at those schools can GET an interview. If too many people want to interview at a given firm, there’s a ranking system. The STUDENTS mark their preferences and the STUDENTS who rank the firm highest among their preferences will get the interviews. If you interview well, you may get a “call back” from a firm even if your gpa is a bit on the low side. </p>
<p>They haven’t even SEEN your transcript, so one lousy grade in a course isn’t going to matter as much as it might if you attended a school that allows employers to pre-screen. </p>
<p>At other schools, the employers do pre-screen and use gpa cut-offs. If too many students sign up vs. the # of interview slots available, the firm may cut based on gpa. Even if you interview well and have lots of other things going for you, you may not GET an interview. </p>
<p>It can happen that a firm says we’ll consider top third of class, but the firm is a popular one, and lots of people sign up for interviews with it. If the firm pre-screens, it may end up that only folks in the top 20% get interviews after all. </p>
<p>If you are from a small market and want to go home, a fair number of firms will give students a telephone interview and fly them to the city. THIS EXAMPLE IS MADE UP, but say you’re from Omaha and you really want to go back to Omaha. From what I’ve seen, the odds are high, even in this market, that the Omaha firm will pay to fly you out to Omaha for an interview if you go to YHS and have some real “connection” with Omaha. (You did UG at UNebraska; you are married and your spouse is from Omaha, etc.) Go to the bottom of the top 14, and you may be told by someone at the same firm that they’ll be glad to interview you, but you’ll have to pay your own fare to Omaha. </p>
<p>Moreover, even though they are definitely top law schools, someone in Omaha may not realize that a NYU or a Cornell or a Duke IS a top law school. Everyone knows YHS are top schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are correct, and I would like to clarify. While it certainly true that the very best law schools in the country do not allow law firms to pre-screen applicants, many of the most competitive law firms and other employers will submit a list of criteria that describe generally what they are looking for in candidates from a given law school (no more than 1 B, law review, prior work experience encouraged, etc.). Regardless of the criteria given by the law firms, any student can sign up for interviews (limited only by demand). When students step into that interview room, 99% of the time they are expected to have a copy of their transcript and a writing sample in hand to give to the interviewers – so, yes, the law firms will ultimately know what grades you have received and in which classes (and since often alumni are involved in the interview process, they know which grades really “mean” something).</p>
<p>I have been on both sides of this interviewee/interviewer relationship (interviewer most recently, obviously), and most of the top law firms will absolutely take your grades into account when making determinations for call backs. It is important to note, though, that at many of the top law firms, once you get that callback interview, it is typically all about personality and fit. Rarely does someone get dinged due to grades/qualifications once they are in the door for a callback interview.</p>
<p>At the schools where employers are not allowed to pre-screen, the students who are the very best at interviewing typically get callbacks “above” their GPA. So GPA always plays a role, but if you give a superb screening interview, you can get away with being a point or two below the firm’s unofficial cutoff, even in a down market.</p>
<p>Am I to read this as a future law school applicant that, say I go to Cornell or Georgetown, I will have a hard time getting a good 120,000k+ job in a bigger city out of Law school if say i’m in ranked in the 50th percentile. What about if I was to be ranked in the 25th percentile?</p>
<p>If inteviewing firms will go deeper in the class at law school A, but the class is actually materially more capable, as an aggregate, at law school A, this may be a wash as far as your personal chances are concerned.</p>
<p>Sally, I’m sorry if it sounded as if I were claiming that grades played NO part in whether you get a callback. They do. However, my understanding is the same as Hanna’s–lots of students who interview will get offers from firms which probably would have screened them out before an interview if given the chance to do so. That’s what I meant when I wrote "If you interview well, you may get a “call back” from a firm even if your gpa is a bit on the low side. "</p>
<p>When it really becomes important, IMO, is when a firm’s slots are oversubscribed. I suspect that in this market, it’s kind of like the elite college admissions process! A fair number of top students are probably accepting more interviews and more call backs because they want to make sure they have a job offer. </p>
<p>So, if the employers can pre-screen, they really may end up seeing only students in the top 20% of the class, though they said they would consider top third. If the firm can’t pre-screen, the students at the BOTTOM of the deck in terms of meeting the standards (or even a bit below it) can get an interview. They aren’t frozen out of even getting a chance by the students at the top of the class. Those students will usually list the most selective law firms in the desired market at the top of their list for interviews and thus will only get interviews at their “safeties” if they are not oversubscribed AFTER the students who list the somewhat less selective firms at the TOP of their list of preferences get interview slots.</p>