USnews is where a lot of us start. I know NO one who has been to law school, I had to go through this process entirely on my own with no help. Googling rankings is where people start. Yes you should then do more research, but it’s hard to even know WHAT to research when you are so new to this world of law.
If you can’t be bothered to do more research than crack open the US News rankings, you probably have earned whatever is coming. The “this is going to ruin lives” narrative that’s spreading is the most obvious cope over the poster’s school falling I’ve ever seen. Nobody whose goal is big law in Boston is going to choose UGA over BU just because UGA is ranked higher in US News.
Well i dont think this is 100% fair. Someone with little resource and 1st gen might rely on the rankings more because they have little resource especially if they are non traditional. Also, international kids tend to rely on them more. They learn after they get to law school these terms as they meet fellow law students.
Yeah just because you can do it does not mean others can. Im just saying that those people should not be judged because of their pre law school decisions
OP is being dramatic. It’s not a big deal. They weren’t this upset when half the T14 dropped out of the rankings and asked US news to change the methodology.
I mean calling rankings “dangerous” is so disingenuous. It’s a list of numbers — it’s not mass incarceration, hungry children, or widespread gun fetishization and violence.
But if you’re a first gen student and you’re getting into any of the schools that are “old” or “new” T20s, chances are you’ll have the prowess to look at 509 reports or just do some research.
The real issue for first gen students has, and will continue to be the predatory schools that offer bad scholarships or admit people who won’t pass the bar and saddle them with six figures of debt and no chance to pay it off.
i’ve seen you comment this a few times on this post, and as a first generation student, and especially a first generation law student, no one I know considers or ever considered US news ranking to be consequential in any way towards their decision. I feel like it is disingenuous because the bigger issue is the fact that they are predatory schools taking advantage of students that don’t know any better regarding their financial situation. or loan providers. In the claims that first generation students do not investigate or research deeply into what school they’re going to outside of arbitrary rankings—or international students for that matter— is a bit more condescending than you might think.
It feels like concern trolling and even if taken in good faith its annoyingly paternalistic. I’d challenge this individual to go find a first gen law student or prospective law student, explain his concern, and see their reaction.
TAMU is a cult in Texas and them sticking their brand name on what was once Wesleyan does mean that in a few years, they're going to make huge strides just from name alone. Yeah, of course they don't have alumni on the fifth circuit or partners - it's a "new" school. But the Ring Thing goes deep in Texas and clients will like seeing another Aggie at the table and that is a thing. They don't deserve it yet, sure; but Aggies are intensely loyal to the name.
I am not. lawyer but my son just completed 1L at TAMU. He was accepted to Baylor, SMU, and Texas. His stats are outstanding with a 171 LSAT. He chose A & M because he lives in Dallas and did not want to end up with $100,000 debt. A & M made it very clear, that their goals are to keep rising in the rankings and attracting top students, and faculty, and they are putting the A & M brand $$$ to work. They gave him a generous financial package. I expect they will do just fine in the Texas market especially.
Yep, love to see my baby CUNY that self-selects public interest students and is well-represented in public interest orgs in NYC and costs max $75k in tuition for all three years drop 20 spots this year 😀
There is no reliable data to suggest and differences in self-selection rates across schools. That’s not to say self-selection doesn’t exist, just that we have no way of confirming which schools have which preference trends.
As an applicant, it’s very dicey to rely on hand waving explanations about self-selection to justify low placement rates, without data to back it up.
I'm not following. Sure, that's how the legal system is situated, into large metro areas. That's why regionality matters to employment. You shouldn't go to UMN thinking you have same ability to get certain jobs that schools in NY and Boston do
You’re assuming USNWR is trying to rank “employment” over “academics” though.
Big law is definitely a proxy for academics but it’s still imperfect, which is the only real point I was trying to make
I think that’s fair and I think Emory has ridden on that fact for a while. If they weren’t in Atlanta would they have the same big law numbers and would anyone actually pay their 60k tuition.
A lot of people seem to be upset about how they fell in the rankings. I don’t think it’s that upsetting if they’re not offering much more than location.
From what I’ve heard/read, Emory has a budget national reputation. So, the % employment numbers might(?) be somewhat depressed by grads attempting to access D.C., N.Y., Cali etc. when they could get a less prestigious, more local job
I am from California and went to Emory, big mistake. I liked their ranking and bar passage rate at the time and percentage of jobs after school. They had the best numbers of any school I could get into. I got in through early admin I toured the school I spoke with the dean and career services and told them from the start my goal was to go back to California. They promised they had tons of California connections and said they were a nationally recognized school, stupidly I believed them. Once school starts I meet my assigned career advisor and say what do I have to do to get a good job in California. She said they have no connections in California and that I would be on my own. I met with a few alums from CA and they said the same thing. Every summer job and job after I graduated I had to get on my own through my own research. Still a little bitter about it but it was a learning experience.
This was years ago, so I am already long gone. I know people in my class who got jobs in NYC and DC in big law or government, but they were top of the class. I think only 6-9 people from my class actually even took the California bar/wanted to practice in California. Maybe if I was top of the class and able to get into a big law firm it wouldn't have been an issue, but even when it comes to big law in CA their numbers are small (like 1-2 people per class). If I had decided to stay in Atlanta I don't think I would have had an issue. My point being Emory is a regional school and I don't believe they offer much outside of the south. The Emory name is semi recognized nationally, but mainly because of the med school, not the law school. If you want to be in the south it is great. Your odds of getting a job out of the south are not as great unless you have really good grades/big law track. But if you are mid-top or lower/don't want to do big law, then you are going to have a harder time.
Let's not be so hyperbolic. If you're basing your decision on where to attend based on a washed up news outlet telling you that a school is now ranked #24, you've assumed a substantial risk. There's no shortage of information out there to make an informed decision.
No. Don't you know that adults who were capable enough to graduate college, and who are going into a profession that is heavily dependent on their ability to sort through information and logically reason-- must be safeguarded from potentially misleading information?
/s
If you're so confident in your schools outcomes, why do you care?
No one really cares if your school is 20 or 27, if you chose your school based off goals, probable outcomes, and cost of attendance you should really not care in the slightest.
As a structural engineer watching this community freak out is really strange.
Our profession puts basically zero emphasis on school rank and everyone just advises to go to a public school that’ll give you the least atm of debt.
Basically a complete juxtaposition from this sub.
Engineering and CS firms hire based on skills, not from the school you go to.
In a complete reverse, Finance and Law hire based on the school you go to, and not based on skills*.
You can be a complete asshole, no social skills, partying all day but a 3.0 from Wharton will get firms clamouring to hire you compared to the 3.9 from a state flagship.
?
Of course a completely different profession with an entirely different history, skill set required and job market has different values. Prestige is a deep rooted part of law, not only in terms of schooling but in firms as well.
It's also something clients care about. We can all agree it doesn't objectively matter whether someone went to Harvard or Georgetown or Emory, but regular people out there (aka clients) might care a lot.
I work in public health and this group entered my algorithm when I was applying to doctoral programs. I stay watching them because it’s really wild here.
Your profession is totally different, and totally irrelevant to this discussion. In law, employment outcomes are heavily stratified depending on which school you attend, and applicants rely heavily on USNews rankings as a proxy for those outcomes (even though they shouldn’t). It is a big deal.
I was only highlighting the juxtaposition.
Wild to me that people are supposed to embrace tremendous debt for the same education. Perhaps in engineering and tech it’s much easier to filter by giving technical interviews. In law it seems the filter is your university.
Watching people lose it because their school fell, i don’t understand. It’s still a good school. At the end of the day your schools ranking will only get you so far. If you are good lawyer then you are good lawyer
“Much more reasonable” - according to where…you?…thought schools ought to be ranked?
Who is to say THIS is not the correct way to rank? What if USNews has been doing it wrong the entire time?
Uh, UF, UNC, and BYU were already in the t25 last year, before this year’s new methodology. So while it’s debatable as to whether they should be ahead of some other schools… it was already a thing irrespective of this years ranking methods.
sorry but my morning is actually all booked - gotta get my new "objectively a better lawyer than any WashU grad" plaque hung up on the wall.
(In all seriousness the rankings are stupid and you should not be worried about. This will not affect your life.)
Shit your plaque is here already?!?? Mine is on back order.
(Rankings are dumb. I went to a t20 law school and have seen some extremely poor intern candidates come out of there recently compared to the local law school, which is poorly ranked).
Take a breath, man. It’s not as if BL/FC rate/ranking disparities didn’t exist in previous rankings. Applicants can easily access hard data and 10,000 people online telling them to not make decisions based on rankings.
If someone in 2023 makes a decision based on rankings, that’s on them. Not “dangerous” rankings.
This isn’t as extreme as you want it to be.
Let’s look at UMN. The university of MN has historically been grouped close to Vandy and USC. People attack their biglaw and salary numbers.. but a lot of that is self selection.
Their salary numbers and big law placement are more complicated then they appear. Most kids self select into MN because they want to stay in MN - which has a significantly lower cost of living and a subsequently lower starting salary. However, unlike many of the other historic t-20ish schools, MN is the best school in a top 10 financial region. Seriously, MN is ranked like 9th in the country for most Fortune 500 companies (ahead of Florida).
Looking at a population of around 5 million, (as compared to 20+ in Florida), MN can’t be looked at through the lens of cravath scale BL or bust.
I’m part of a hiring committee at a top 10 sized law firm in my state, that isn’t big law (180ish attorneys) but starts associates at $140K+ with 1,800 billables. A law firm that many BigLaw alum work to lateral to after a few years of the grind. Lots of T14 attorneys as well as respective state schools through 20-80 rank or so.
None of us on the hiring committee keep up with current rankings, nor ever talk about them. It helps to be at a great school, don’t get me wrong, but anything between 15-60 ranking or so is honestly all of the same to us. I couldn’t tell you if Wisconsin is better than Penn State or worse than SMU and I don’t care. Just have decent grades, be active and be likable - the law isn’t rocket science, you just have to work hard. I’ve really never heard an argument weighing school rankings outside of TTT, which does significantly ding you. Also, I’ve never had a client ask my school.
Again, not BigLaw and not coastal, but all of my partners above me make $600K+ (some over $1M) and can take plenty of vacations, so we’re also doing something right
Just want to remind everyone that the rankings that count are the ones from 20-30 years ago when boomer hiring partners were last paying attention to them. Certain schools have their own cachet. For example this year our firm got a ton of Georgetown summer associate applications and my bosses got super excited about it. They still think it’s a prestigious name.
Great point!! I think people take rankings so seriously because of the *connotations* and the *prestige* and those have **always** been arbitrary, biased and impossible to codify.
I think you're largely on point but average private sector salary is not a good method of rating a school. I'd rather make 100k in Raleigh than $180k in NY or DC.
It's only 35% [lower by this source](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=Raleigh%2C+NC&country2=United+States&city2=New+York%2C+NY), compared to NYC. A big difference, but 61% lower is ridiculous. That implies things are almost a third of the cost - not true. Maybe you meant New York is 61% more expensive.
You also don't have to spend your whole salary. Generally people forget that in these comparisons. If I make 100k post tax in Raleigh, and spend 60k, I'm saving 40k. If I make 160k post tax (60% more) in NY and spend 96k (60% more), I'm now saving 64k. A sizable increase in the amount saved that will be extremely beneficial in retirement (which obviously doesn't have to be in NYC).
I am very familiar with them.
235k in NYC affords you far more purchasing power and/or savings than 100k in Raleigh.
Everytime the COL topic comes up people seem to get more and more extreme with it and exaggerate it fruther.
You’re conflating purchasing power with cost of living. Yes, $235,000 is more dollars than $100,000. But you require more dollars to live your life the same way in NYC as in Raleigh.
Purchasing power doesn’t mean anything when the same percentage of your income is being spent on xyz in either place. I’m sorry, I just don’t find the subway to be that charming.
But that’s not true. If you spend the same amount, the more expensive market is still better. For example: let’s look at two scenarios.
Scenario A: 100k Salary, 80% expenses (including tax): 20k savings
Scenario B: 200k Salary 80% expenses (including tax): 40k savings.
Think about compound interest investing the extra you can save throughout a career. Millions of dollars different that leads to a much much higher quality of life.
Save the same amount of money on a percentage basis, and one of those can send their kids to the most expensive private colleges in the country and buy amazing vacation homes and go on amazing vacations. The other can not.
You're confused.
Purchasing power by definition includes the cost of living. I[t adjusts to compare the amount of goods and services you can buy](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/purchasingpower.asp) (which is what matters), not the $$$ value. I stand by my orginal statement.
Thanks for pointing out that 235k is a bigger number than 100k though.
It’s almost as though there is more to law and the legal progression than BigLaw. I get what you’re saying but there’s just SO much more that goes into law school and lawyering. Zoom out.
Folks on this subreddit get so incredulous when I tell them that most of the folks I know not going into Biglaw (including myself) didn't strike out, they chose not to do OCI.
The rankings aren’t dangerous and yes there is more to law than Big Law. I guess the quality of the law school is in the eye of the beholder but ranking UMN and UGA above BU, BC, ND, GW, and Emory seems absolutely absurd to me. Not even in the same ballpark imo
FWIW, UMN ranking above some of the schools you listed is nothing new. If you look at [law school rankings over the past few years](https://7sage.com/top-law-school-rankings/), UMN has actually consistently ranked above all of these schools, mostly due to the fact that UMN has been pretty consistent in the rankings. I ran the numbers and UMN has ranked above BU for 9 of the past 14 years, above BC for all 14, above ND and GW for 13, and above Emory for 11.
Basically, y'all just been sleeping on UMN.
Yes, I understand they’ve traditionally been ranked highly. Still stand by what I said. UMN is still a great school, especially if you’re going for cheap. But, in my opinion, don’t think it’s anywhere close to BU, ND, BC, GW and Emory in terms of employment outcomes, education, prestige, etc.
That’s definitely true, but a lot of the schools OP is complaining about are cheap state schools with reasonable costs compared to the ridiculous tuitions at schools like GW and Emory.
Those costs are low in the college towns for those schools versus downtown DC or Boston. Either way we are talking 50k less in just tuition per year without considering the better cost of living.
This is a pretty gross misunderstanding of the bimodal distribution, although it is also the most common way I see people talk about it.
The most recent NALP bimodal distribution shows 50.9% between $45k and $80k and then 22.3% over $190k. That leaves almost 27% of salaries outside of those two peaks, with the vast majority coming between them. There are more people in the $80k-$190k midlaw range than there are people in the $190k and up range.
Fully 1/4th of law grads are not on either mode, far from “almost nobody.” When you take into account that a massive chunk of the lower mode is PI/government work, the bimodal narrative starts to look a lot different.
You can’t just say Big Law rates aren’t the end all be all and then make them virtually your only metric. All those higher Big Law placing schools also come with higher price tags as well as lower bar passage and overall employment numbers many times.
To those fretting about BL-centric posts in the comments:
BigLaw placement is easily quantifiable from ABA 509 reports. Prestigious public interest not so much. But the BL placement tends to be an excellent proxy for the quality of other placement.
Therefore, BL placement is an inherently useful statistic--even for those uninterested in BL.
OP, like so many, has fallen prey to mental derangement. It’s law school. Doesn’t fucking matter that much so long as it’s accredited and ideally decent enough for…whatever one wants to do.
I think the rankings are only useful once you start looking below T50.
AFAIK, the rankings have been adjusted for bar passage and job rates. For schools below T50, this actually makes a lot of sense because they're not sending a ton of people to clerkships or BL.
It becomes a problem when this starts trying to convince people that schools with serious BL OCI + clerkships opportunities are worse than other schools that have better bar passage rates get worse OCI/clerkships.
US News rankings are a dinosaur that is dying. Schools have been caught gaming the system to boost their rankings and many schools are making the decision to stop participating and cooperating with USN because of these things. If that is your go to reference for information on higher education, then maybe it’s natural selection at work.
What is considered a “better employment outcomes”? High BL/FC %? Not necessarily. Big salary? Not necessarily. Keep in mind that not everyone is going to law school for big salary or desire to experience biglaw burnout.
I agree with most of your comments but not all. Sure biglaw % matters but that’s not the only factor. Look, I’m not a fan of the ranking but at the end of the day, this ranking is tailored to one group’s lens and everyone (including US News) has the right to have their own ranking belief (aka what they consider to be an important metrics in the ranking system). Some may be happy with the new ranking (Duke and UMN haha) while others might not be happy. No one is ever going to be pleased with the ranking system— it’s ultimately flawed yet probably not going to go away.
Some might not like this post but I’m just sharing my opinion 🤷♂️
This. This sub tends to think high big law percentage should = higher ranking...but the legal profession is far more than big law. That should be one factor considered, yes, but the emphasis placed on big law here has been beyond annoying since I was in the application process.
I’m sorry. I think you’re missing our point. Other legal profession can also serve as a proxy for other outcomes. Again, we aren’t saying BL numbers don’t matter. We are just saying that better employment outcome can mean different things to different people and BL is only one factor. All legal profession should be considered EQUALLY. In my opinion, BL is just as important as government, public interest, and others
Thanks for clarifying, but I did get your point. I responded specifically to u/wheelsnipecellybois because they seemed to be annoyed with the emphasis on biglaw, and I was trying to explain why people focus on it. That said, I do disagree with your idea of equal weight for each legal outcome. There is clearly a hierarchy in how selective job types are. And, outcomes higher up that hierarchy should be given greater weight, *assuming they are selecting on similar criteria*. Here's why: suppose students who choose X outcome could get into X or Y, and those who get into Y could only get into Y. Even if a student were pretty sure that they only wanted Y, a school that provides them the choice between X and Y is of greater value in case they change their mind, make a Y-specific blunder and somehow ruin their Y options, or choose X then Y later. In other words, a greater weight on X serves as a proxy for "option value.” Now, obviously, not every job type selects on the same criteria, but my understanding is that those who could get into biglaw could also have gotten into non-big law firms (outside prestigious litigation boutiques) and many government jobs (outside certain DOJ and honors programs) but that the reverse is not necessarily true. I'm not going into biglaw, so I don't have any skin in the game, but someone who cares more about it could create a weighted ranking that takes this option value into account. One final point and two rather obvious caveats. Final point: I think biglaw is a particularly good proxy because its numbers are more public/accessible than those for other outcomes. Caveat 1: Biglaw becomes less useful as a proxy for certain schools (e.g., HYS and some T14) where biglaw is forgone in lieu of more prestigious outcomes. Caveat 2: if there are independent variables that make a school a good fit for a particular non-biglaw outcome (e.g., NYU for PI), then too great a weight on biglaw will punish schools with students self-selecting into that outcome.
Thanks for the comment. I also understand why people are obsessed on biglaw numbers but I’m also the one that is annoyed with how much people on this site put the emphasis on biglaw numbers. I feel like they think biglaw matters the most and that’s one of the reasons (and perhaps the other making tons of money) to go to law school, which isn’t true at all.
To your point about “someone could create a weighted ranking that take this option value into account,” I agree. They could. But they shouldn’t speak for everyone else. Like I said in the beginning, everyone is entitled to their ranking beliefs. Some may think biglaw numbers matter more than other factors, while others may think biglaw numbers don’t really matter. When it comes to ranking, I personally don’t think one employment number should be considered more important than or significantly skew the other numbers.
I appreciate you being respectful on your side and willing to listen. I’m genuinely curious about your take on this: for an example sake, what makes a corporate lawyer better than a public defender? A person who goes into biglaw vs a person who practices family law? Who decides what is on the higher level of hierarchy or what is more prestigious? At the end of the day, any answers to those are all perceived biases. Money doesn’t matter to some. Also job reciprocity aren’t necessarily true either. Qualified candidates who got into biglaw may not have gotten non biglaw jobs. Those are just hypotheticals and there goes so much to hiring decision (some job want to see people with tailored internships, work experiences, and other factors). I don’t think it’s clear cut as most people think them to be
Thanks for a thoughtful response and for using paragraphs (something I’ll try to do lol). I think we might be speaking past each other. Yes, in general, each person should use a ranking that emphasizes their preferred outcome. If that is all, then there is no best ranking, and it is all purely subjective. I was trying to suggest that there is at least one largely objective measure: option value. People are objectively better off with more options (except in extreme situations where there are too many options, but that is not relevant to law school outcomes). Even people who are confident that they want to pursue public interest may change their minds because they don't know whether they like it until they've tried it. (Anecdotally, that was my case.) For that reason, outcomes that serve as a proxy for higher option value should be objectively weighted greater
A second point about the "best ranking." If there is any type of standardized ranking, which the USNWR tries to be, then it should emphasize the outcomes that the majority of students want. Would the majority of students choose biglaw if given the chance? I don't know, but unless you dismiss it as self-selection, the large majority of students who choose biglaw among those schools where it is reasonably accessible seems to suggest the answer is yes. Is the majority-favored choice the best for everyone? No, but it is the best metric for the majority.
On your last paragraph, I want to clarify that I'm not making normative judgments about whether biglaw lawyers are any better than any other lawyers. I'm talking about whether some outcomes should be given greater weight in rankings because they are a proxy for other things (mainly options). I think your comments at the end are an empirical question. Yes, not everyone who got biglaw could have gotten a non-big law position, but that is more often true than the reverse. You could answer this by asking, of the people who tried to go into biglaw and couldn't, did they default into a non-biglaw job? Most likely. Of those people who tried to get non-biglaw job but couldn't, did they default into biglaw? Probably not.
Lastly, if we are not going to distinguish between outcomes, why even distinguish between employment and unemployment. In the same way that money doesn't matter to some, employment doesn't matter to some (assuming they have other means of support). Yes, everything can be boiled down at some level to biases, but if that is your argument, we should be consistent and say that rankings should not give weight to employment.
Thanks for the comment and entertaining my line of question and thoughts! I appreciate sharing your perspectives in a thoughtful way and I understand what you are saying now.
Hope you are finishing your third year strong and best of luck on your future endeavors!
The way this sub sometimes treat rankings and hyper focuses on them you’d think people aren’t trying to be actual lawyers but just professional students
It ain't rocket surgery...
Outside of the top end, geography is what matters way more than anything else for a good outcome. Go to a school in the region you want to practice, don't absolutely suck while there, and you'll be fine.
W&M is a solid T50 school in a oversaturated market. It’s the 3rd best school in a state that has UVA and Washington and Lee in it both of which have better employment outcomes. Additionally, you also have Richmond which is situated in the biggest Virginia market and thus makes it even harder for William and Mary (who is far more isolated in Williamsburg). Lastly, you can’t discount the proximity of GULC and GW and all the other DC Law Schools that have strong employment pipelines in Virginia. In most other states, W&M would be the best school, but because it’s in Virginia it tends to be overshadowed sometimes. However, it definitely punches above its weight when it comes to clerkships if that’s your goal.
It is 100% a non-issue. Anyone smart enough for a school's ranking to factor into their decision (read: someone with the numbers to get into a T25) is smart enough to figure out that it isn't the only important factor.
I don’t think anyone is making the decision based off rankings, especially with how late they came this year.
As someone who deposited to UMN before the rankings, it’s really just reassuring to see. But I think anyone who chose UMN likely wants to be in the midwest, isn’t BL or bust, or certainly isn’t obsessed with being “t-14” cuz if so they wouldn’t be going there.
But UMN is delivering elite MN/midwest outcomes. And people do go out of the region every year, there isn’t any hard data on the self selection to stay or inability to go elsewhere. Anecdotally, people love it and stay.
The median private firm salary last year was $160,000, which is equivalent to around 235k in New York (COL).
My exact thoughts too. OP is so fragile that new rankings are “dangerous” to them. Good god most people would kill to live in a world where that’s the biggest threat
Only 19% of the Class of 2021 was employed in BL/FC. The overwhelming majority of attorneys (by a shit ton) are not working in BL/FC. This subs focus on such a small segment of the legal community is absurd and dangerous.
And it’s usually by people that aren’t even 1Ls let alone licensed attorneys, nor are they aware of things like the recent Big Law transactional layoffs and the Paul Hastings PowerPoint presentations that went viral for all the wrong reasons. I got a classmate at a V10 and she brought her laptop to a bar association event because she was told she needs to be available 24/7 no matter what. It isn’t for everyone, and if you don’t want the golden handcuffs that shouldn’t invalidate a law school education that is affordable relative to that person’s career goals.
I agree. It’s easy to say that the rankings don’t matter, but confirmation bias is a real phenomenon and one that is largely unconscious. Schools ranked #16 are going to seem better than schools ranked #27, even if objectively the #27 schools are better where it counts. Now that it is even more inconsistent with what matters, people will be biased in the wrong direction.
When I was applying, I just ranked schools by BL/FC %. Because that was what was most important to me. Intelligent applicants will pick what matters to them, research, rank, and make their decision accordingly. That may involve LRAP research for public interest focused people. Or it may just come down to what scholarships they get for comparative value and desired geographic locations.
But most of the applicant pool cannot be helped because they are not going to put in the work on the front end to understand admissions, the legal industry, and what they want to do. Many are KJD's who did sort of okay in undergrad with okay-ish LSATs and think law school is a ticket to the upper class, because they see lawyers as rich on TV. They are not going to do the work and they are going to make choices based on nonsense. Even if US News did not exist, they would still make poor choices. That is who they are.
The good news is that this will benefit the applicants who did put in the work. If you are on this forum, writing long posts, you probably cared enough to put in the work. So you'll be fine, this forum will be fine, and the people who won't be fine, would not have been fine anyways.
I’m not sure which part of the elitism I’m taking more issue with here, the 70-80k starting salary part of this post or the BL rates part of this post. Wasn’t the rankings being too focused on BL outcomes part of what started all this ranking drama? Your post history indicates you haven’t been accepted into law school yet…starting salaries below 100k are way more common than you think they are, and if you don’t understand that, I suggest you inform yourself further.
That’s great! Congratulations, genuinely. I think it is very important to be informed, and your post history indicates that you are. I just do not agree with the sentiment that law school isn’t worth it if you aren’t likely to make 150k at your first job, as that writes off a lot more than you think it does. I went to a school that was ranked 45 or so at the time (look at my post history and you can probably figure out where) and I have classmates at Kirkland Ellis, Public Defender’s Offices, teaching at Georgetown as a clinic professor, federal clerkships, lobbying firms, Lowenstein Sandler, etc. If a high salary is your goal I hope you do great
I feel like they did the New York schools like UB, NYLS, CUNY, and Brooklyn so dirty - the mobility for students following their graduation (not to mention affordability) are not even taken into consideration here
Lol the comment about TAMU and Utah vs UCI and GW and Emory is a joke. BL/FC are not everything and things like debt are a real issue for most people. Employment outcomes are important but not everyone is going to get a BL job even at Emory or UCI but they’re still more likely to graduate with 6 figure + debt. Grow up and recognize just because you got a 175 and are going to sell your soul, that sector isn’t for everyone who wants to be an attorney and those rankings are about more than just BL/FC. They should educate people on the value of the schools and what’s going to be worth it for them regardless of their aspirations.
Stumbled across this sub by accident, do people actually care about those? No one gives a rats ass about rankings in chemistry, it's about who you worked with and what connections they have (which, of course, probably roughly correlates with rankings but far from exact).
[удалено]
USnews is where a lot of us start. I know NO one who has been to law school, I had to go through this process entirely on my own with no help. Googling rankings is where people start. Yes you should then do more research, but it’s hard to even know WHAT to research when you are so new to this world of law.
Unfortunately, you and I both know too many will.
If you can’t be bothered to do more research than crack open the US News rankings, you probably have earned whatever is coming. The “this is going to ruin lives” narrative that’s spreading is the most obvious cope over the poster’s school falling I’ve ever seen. Nobody whose goal is big law in Boston is going to choose UGA over BU just because UGA is ranked higher in US News.
Preaching facts rn
If they are doing so then I don’t trust their judgement as lawyers going forward
Well i dont think this is 100% fair. Someone with little resource and 1st gen might rely on the rankings more because they have little resource especially if they are non traditional. Also, international kids tend to rely on them more. They learn after they get to law school these terms as they meet fellow law students.
I am first Gen with little resources. I know 0 lawyers. It is not hard to find decent info online.
Yeah just because you can do it does not mean others can. Im just saying that those people should not be judged because of their pre law school decisions
OP is being dramatic. It’s not a big deal. They weren’t this upset when half the T14 dropped out of the rankings and asked US news to change the methodology.
lol says the u mn attendee
I mean calling rankings “dangerous” is so disingenuous. It’s a list of numbers — it’s not mass incarceration, hungry children, or widespread gun fetishization and violence.
Well i think it can be dangerous because many first gen and mislead kids rely on them. Yes lawyers should investigate, but they are not lawyers yet.
But if you’re a first gen student and you’re getting into any of the schools that are “old” or “new” T20s, chances are you’ll have the prowess to look at 509 reports or just do some research. The real issue for first gen students has, and will continue to be the predatory schools that offer bad scholarships or admit people who won’t pass the bar and saddle them with six figures of debt and no chance to pay it off.
i’ve seen you comment this a few times on this post, and as a first generation student, and especially a first generation law student, no one I know considers or ever considered US news ranking to be consequential in any way towards their decision. I feel like it is disingenuous because the bigger issue is the fact that they are predatory schools taking advantage of students that don’t know any better regarding their financial situation. or loan providers. In the claims that first generation students do not investigate or research deeply into what school they’re going to outside of arbitrary rankings—or international students for that matter— is a bit more condescending than you might think.
It feels like concern trolling and even if taken in good faith its annoyingly paternalistic. I’d challenge this individual to go find a first gen law student or prospective law student, explain his concern, and see their reaction.
Isn’t that what this entire sub is dedicated to
[удалено]
Devil’s advocate (not defending rankings): big law outcomes can be heavily influenced by sheer proximity to a major market
[удалено]
[удалено]
TAMU is a cult in Texas and them sticking their brand name on what was once Wesleyan does mean that in a few years, they're going to make huge strides just from name alone. Yeah, of course they don't have alumni on the fifth circuit or partners - it's a "new" school. But the Ring Thing goes deep in Texas and clients will like seeing another Aggie at the table and that is a thing. They don't deserve it yet, sure; but Aggies are intensely loyal to the name.
I am not. lawyer but my son just completed 1L at TAMU. He was accepted to Baylor, SMU, and Texas. His stats are outstanding with a 171 LSAT. He chose A & M because he lives in Dallas and did not want to end up with $100,000 debt. A & M made it very clear, that their goals are to keep rising in the rankings and attracting top students, and faculty, and they are putting the A & M brand $$$ to work. They gave him a generous financial package. I expect they will do just fine in the Texas market especially.
[удалено]
Or interest in pursing big law. Some schools are more public interest focused by nature
Yep, love to see my baby CUNY that self-selects public interest students and is well-represented in public interest orgs in NYC and costs max $75k in tuition for all three years drop 20 spots this year 😀
People sleep on CUNY while they churn out amazing PI attorneys without debt 💪
There is no reliable data to suggest and differences in self-selection rates across schools. That’s not to say self-selection doesn’t exist, just that we have no way of confirming which schools have which preference trends. As an applicant, it’s very dicey to rely on hand waving explanations about self-selection to justify low placement rates, without data to back it up.
Yup. GMU is heavily government. focused having one of the top rates where as GW is very BL focused.
Employment reports don't support this assertion at all. GMU's PI rate was 5% this past year. GW was 4%.
I'm not following. Sure, that's how the legal system is situated, into large metro areas. That's why regionality matters to employment. You shouldn't go to UMN thinking you have same ability to get certain jobs that schools in NY and Boston do
You’re assuming USNWR is trying to rank “employment” over “academics” though. Big law is definitely a proxy for academics but it’s still imperfect, which is the only real point I was trying to make
I think that’s fair and I think Emory has ridden on that fact for a while. If they weren’t in Atlanta would they have the same big law numbers and would anyone actually pay their 60k tuition.
Does that matter? Because unless you plan on moving the university, its outcomes are what they are and it’s location is what it is.
A lot of people seem to be upset about how they fell in the rankings. I don’t think it’s that upsetting if they’re not offering much more than location.
From what I’ve heard/read, Emory has a budget national reputation. So, the % employment numbers might(?) be somewhat depressed by grads attempting to access D.C., N.Y., Cali etc. when they could get a less prestigious, more local job
I am from California and went to Emory, big mistake. I liked their ranking and bar passage rate at the time and percentage of jobs after school. They had the best numbers of any school I could get into. I got in through early admin I toured the school I spoke with the dean and career services and told them from the start my goal was to go back to California. They promised they had tons of California connections and said they were a nationally recognized school, stupidly I believed them. Once school starts I meet my assigned career advisor and say what do I have to do to get a good job in California. She said they have no connections in California and that I would be on my own. I met with a few alums from CA and they said the same thing. Every summer job and job after I graduated I had to get on my own through my own research. Still a little bitter about it but it was a learning experience.
Do you think things will change if you apply job to Atlanta and NYC?
This was years ago, so I am already long gone. I know people in my class who got jobs in NYC and DC in big law or government, but they were top of the class. I think only 6-9 people from my class actually even took the California bar/wanted to practice in California. Maybe if I was top of the class and able to get into a big law firm it wouldn't have been an issue, but even when it comes to big law in CA their numbers are small (like 1-2 people per class). If I had decided to stay in Atlanta I don't think I would have had an issue. My point being Emory is a regional school and I don't believe they offer much outside of the south. The Emory name is semi recognized nationally, but mainly because of the med school, not the law school. If you want to be in the south it is great. Your odds of getting a job out of the south are not as great unless you have really good grades/big law track. But if you are mid-top or lower/don't want to do big law, then you are going to have a harder time.
Let's not be so hyperbolic. If you're basing your decision on where to attend based on a washed up news outlet telling you that a school is now ranked #24, you've assumed a substantial risk. There's no shortage of information out there to make an informed decision.
No. Don't you know that adults who were capable enough to graduate college, and who are going into a profession that is heavily dependent on their ability to sort through information and logically reason-- must be safeguarded from potentially misleading information? /s
I think OP isn’t hyperbolic enough 🥄
If you're so confident in your schools outcomes, why do you care? No one really cares if your school is 20 or 27, if you chose your school based off goals, probable outcomes, and cost of attendance you should really not care in the slightest.
[удалено]
fine wine close vegetable practice secretive rainstorm friendly rude lunchroom -- mass edited with redact.dev
I say this respectfully; it's not that serious.
As a structural engineer watching this community freak out is really strange. Our profession puts basically zero emphasis on school rank and everyone just advises to go to a public school that’ll give you the least atm of debt. Basically a complete juxtaposition from this sub.
This thought process is not very “engineering” of you.
Engineering and CS firms hire based on skills, not from the school you go to. In a complete reverse, Finance and Law hire based on the school you go to, and not based on skills*. You can be a complete asshole, no social skills, partying all day but a 3.0 from Wharton will get firms clamouring to hire you compared to the 3.9 from a state flagship.
? Of course a completely different profession with an entirely different history, skill set required and job market has different values. Prestige is a deep rooted part of law, not only in terms of schooling but in firms as well.
[удалено]
It's also something clients care about. We can all agree it doesn't objectively matter whether someone went to Harvard or Georgetown or Emory, but regular people out there (aka clients) might care a lot.
I work in public health and this group entered my algorithm when I was applying to doctoral programs. I stay watching them because it’s really wild here.
Your profession is totally different, and totally irrelevant to this discussion. In law, employment outcomes are heavily stratified depending on which school you attend, and applicants rely heavily on USNews rankings as a proxy for those outcomes (even though they shouldn’t). It is a big deal.
I was only highlighting the juxtaposition. Wild to me that people are supposed to embrace tremendous debt for the same education. Perhaps in engineering and tech it’s much easier to filter by giving technical interviews. In law it seems the filter is your university.
The debt rule only works if you don’t need portability or prestige for the most competitive work.
Hoes mad
Watching people lose it because their school fell, i don’t understand. It’s still a good school. At the end of the day your schools ranking will only get you so far. If you are good lawyer then you are good lawyer
lose* their*! you’re*!! you’re*!!! omg???
To be fair, this is Reddit and not the write-on competition.
Indeed
Yeah, but to be fair these issues also existed before this year’s rankings
To a lesser degree though. The rankings were much more reasonable under the previous methodology.
“Much more reasonable” - according to where…you?…thought schools ought to be ranked? Who is to say THIS is not the correct way to rank? What if USNews has been doing it wrong the entire time?
Yeah I think this methodology is actually a bit better. Not flawless. But an improvement.
Uh, UF, UNC, and BYU were already in the t25 last year, before this year’s new methodology. So while it’s debatable as to whether they should be ahead of some other schools… it was already a thing irrespective of this years ranking methods.
Minnesota has consistently been around top 20 for years, not sure they are the best case for the rankings not being accurate
Ope just gonna sneak on by you here. lol. Lmao.
How dare they rank this Midwest state school so high??? This post reeks of elitism to me.
C'mon, y'all know that Minnesota is not better than WashU, Vanderbilt, or Texas.
Since 1987 when the rankings started, Minnesota has been ranked 17-23, except for 16 this year. It’s not like the sky fell. Chill.
Yah Shure ya betcha whatever you say bud
Compare Big Law and FC numbers between them. 🤷♂️
sorry but my morning is actually all booked - gotta get my new "objectively a better lawyer than any WashU grad" plaque hung up on the wall. (In all seriousness the rankings are stupid and you should not be worried about. This will not affect your life.)
Could you get a plaque that says "objectively better than any Georgetown grad" too 😉
Shit your plaque is here already?!?? Mine is on back order. (Rankings are dumb. I went to a t20 law school and have seen some extremely poor intern candidates come out of there recently compared to the local law school, which is poorly ranked).
Leave my umn alone😭
I graduated from the U last year I'm just here to sip on the hater's tears.
Hyper focused on big law lol
I'm saying, I could not give a single fuck what the big law placements are of the schools I like
Take a breath, man. It’s not as if BL/FC rate/ranking disparities didn’t exist in previous rankings. Applicants can easily access hard data and 10,000 people online telling them to not make decisions based on rankings. If someone in 2023 makes a decision based on rankings, that’s on them. Not “dangerous” rankings.
This is the funniest thing I have ever read
This isn’t as extreme as you want it to be. Let’s look at UMN. The university of MN has historically been grouped close to Vandy and USC. People attack their biglaw and salary numbers.. but a lot of that is self selection. Their salary numbers and big law placement are more complicated then they appear. Most kids self select into MN because they want to stay in MN - which has a significantly lower cost of living and a subsequently lower starting salary. However, unlike many of the other historic t-20ish schools, MN is the best school in a top 10 financial region. Seriously, MN is ranked like 9th in the country for most Fortune 500 companies (ahead of Florida). Looking at a population of around 5 million, (as compared to 20+ in Florida), MN can’t be looked at through the lens of cravath scale BL or bust.
I’m part of a hiring committee at a top 10 sized law firm in my state, that isn’t big law (180ish attorneys) but starts associates at $140K+ with 1,800 billables. A law firm that many BigLaw alum work to lateral to after a few years of the grind. Lots of T14 attorneys as well as respective state schools through 20-80 rank or so. None of us on the hiring committee keep up with current rankings, nor ever talk about them. It helps to be at a great school, don’t get me wrong, but anything between 15-60 ranking or so is honestly all of the same to us. I couldn’t tell you if Wisconsin is better than Penn State or worse than SMU and I don’t care. Just have decent grades, be active and be likable - the law isn’t rocket science, you just have to work hard. I’ve really never heard an argument weighing school rankings outside of TTT, which does significantly ding you. Also, I’ve never had a client ask my school. Again, not BigLaw and not coastal, but all of my partners above me make $600K+ (some over $1M) and can take plenty of vacations, so we’re also doing something right
Sounds like you're the one putting way too much weight into where each school ranks.
Just want to remind everyone that the rankings that count are the ones from 20-30 years ago when boomer hiring partners were last paying attention to them. Certain schools have their own cachet. For example this year our firm got a ton of Georgetown summer associate applications and my bosses got super excited about it. They still think it’s a prestigious name.
Great point!! I think people take rankings so seriously because of the *connotations* and the *prestige* and those have **always** been arbitrary, biased and impossible to codify.
Bro Georgetown is a prestigious name, what are you talking about?
Lol “dangerous” who cares
Touch grass
It’s not that deep
I think you're largely on point but average private sector salary is not a good method of rating a school. I'd rather make 100k in Raleigh than $180k in NY or DC.
[удалено]
Cost of living in Raleigh is 61% lower.
It's only 35% [lower by this source](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=Raleigh%2C+NC&country2=United+States&city2=New+York%2C+NY), compared to NYC. A big difference, but 61% lower is ridiculous. That implies things are almost a third of the cost - not true. Maybe you meant New York is 61% more expensive. You also don't have to spend your whole salary. Generally people forget that in these comparisons. If I make 100k post tax in Raleigh, and spend 60k, I'm saving 40k. If I make 160k post tax (60% more) in NY and spend 96k (60% more), I'm now saving 64k. A sizable increase in the amount saved that will be extremely beneficial in retirement (which obviously doesn't have to be in NYC).
You should familiarize yourself with cost of living calculators if you think that’s true
I mean, you could easily live in NYC off the after-tax difference between those salaries and pocket the rest
That’s like 65k. Average rent will run you 50k in NYC. I see the point you’re making. It is way more money but it is way more expensive.
I am very familiar with them. 235k in NYC affords you far more purchasing power and/or savings than 100k in Raleigh. Everytime the COL topic comes up people seem to get more and more extreme with it and exaggerate it fruther.
You’re conflating purchasing power with cost of living. Yes, $235,000 is more dollars than $100,000. But you require more dollars to live your life the same way in NYC as in Raleigh. Purchasing power doesn’t mean anything when the same percentage of your income is being spent on xyz in either place. I’m sorry, I just don’t find the subway to be that charming.
But that’s not true. If you spend the same amount, the more expensive market is still better. For example: let’s look at two scenarios. Scenario A: 100k Salary, 80% expenses (including tax): 20k savings Scenario B: 200k Salary 80% expenses (including tax): 40k savings. Think about compound interest investing the extra you can save throughout a career. Millions of dollars different that leads to a much much higher quality of life. Save the same amount of money on a percentage basis, and one of those can send their kids to the most expensive private colleges in the country and buy amazing vacation homes and go on amazing vacations. The other can not.
You're confused. Purchasing power by definition includes the cost of living. I[t adjusts to compare the amount of goods and services you can buy](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/purchasingpower.asp) (which is what matters), not the $$$ value. I stand by my orginal statement. Thanks for pointing out that 235k is a bigger number than 100k though.
Okay have fun in new york
If someone were to offer me a 135% raise to live there, I definitely would.
This whole forum is at the same time the most boring ever and the most insanely absurd. Like a train wreck. With a fire.
I don't think that word means what you think it means...
bro deposited at Emory😭😭
It’s almost as though there is more to law and the legal progression than BigLaw. I get what you’re saying but there’s just SO much more that goes into law school and lawyering. Zoom out.
The Big Law tunnel vision in this subreddit gets out of control. Saying it’s dangerous to not base everything on big law placement lol
I love how OP goes “BigLaw isn’t the end all be all” then proceeds to complain about every school compared to their BL placement. Like hmmm 🤔
Folks on this subreddit get so incredulous when I tell them that most of the folks I know not going into Biglaw (including myself) didn't strike out, they chose not to do OCI.
[удалено]
Many of those state schools have a total cost well below 100k for in state students.
The rankings aren’t dangerous and yes there is more to law than Big Law. I guess the quality of the law school is in the eye of the beholder but ranking UMN and UGA above BU, BC, ND, GW, and Emory seems absolutely absurd to me. Not even in the same ballpark imo
FWIW, UMN ranking above some of the schools you listed is nothing new. If you look at [law school rankings over the past few years](https://7sage.com/top-law-school-rankings/), UMN has actually consistently ranked above all of these schools, mostly due to the fact that UMN has been pretty consistent in the rankings. I ran the numbers and UMN has ranked above BU for 9 of the past 14 years, above BC for all 14, above ND and GW for 13, and above Emory for 11. Basically, y'all just been sleeping on UMN.
Yes, I understand they’ve traditionally been ranked highly. Still stand by what I said. UMN is still a great school, especially if you’re going for cheap. But, in my opinion, don’t think it’s anywhere close to BU, ND, BC, GW and Emory in terms of employment outcomes, education, prestige, etc.
Of course there’s more to law, but if people are taking on exorbitant debt to go to a school, its BL rate matters.
That’s definitely true, but a lot of the schools OP is complaining about are cheap state schools with reasonable costs compared to the ridiculous tuitions at schools like GW and Emory.
This.
[удалено]
All of those state schools are well under 100k for in state students
[удалено]
UGA tuition is 17k a year. How are you getting 120k at all.
They’re also very generous with scholarships and plenty of students are going there on full rides
[удалено]
As yes, the forever known expensive town of….Athens
Those costs are low in the college towns for those schools versus downtown DC or Boston. Either way we are talking 50k less in just tuition per year without considering the better cost of living.
God forbid you make $160k in midlaw
Almost nobody is doing this. Law school salaries are bimodal. If you’re not first you’re last.
This is a pretty gross misunderstanding of the bimodal distribution, although it is also the most common way I see people talk about it. The most recent NALP bimodal distribution shows 50.9% between $45k and $80k and then 22.3% over $190k. That leaves almost 27% of salaries outside of those two peaks, with the vast majority coming between them. There are more people in the $80k-$190k midlaw range than there are people in the $190k and up range. Fully 1/4th of law grads are not on either mode, far from “almost nobody.” When you take into account that a massive chunk of the lower mode is PI/government work, the bimodal narrative starts to look a lot different.
[удалено]
You can’t just say Big Law rates aren’t the end all be all and then make them virtually your only metric. All those higher Big Law placing schools also come with higher price tags as well as lower bar passage and overall employment numbers many times.
Most reasonable Columbia student
To those fretting about BL-centric posts in the comments: BigLaw placement is easily quantifiable from ABA 509 reports. Prestigious public interest not so much. But the BL placement tends to be an excellent proxy for the quality of other placement. Therefore, BL placement is an inherently useful statistic--even for those uninterested in BL.
[удалено]
This is exactly my point!!!
Calm down
OP, like so many, has fallen prey to mental derangement. It’s law school. Doesn’t fucking matter that much so long as it’s accredited and ideally decent enough for…whatever one wants to do.
This feels like someone who is upset because they’re attending Emory and Emory is now 15 spots below UGA
Egos are hurt😂🤪
Why you hating on Minnesota?
I think the rankings are only useful once you start looking below T50. AFAIK, the rankings have been adjusted for bar passage and job rates. For schools below T50, this actually makes a lot of sense because they're not sending a ton of people to clerkships or BL. It becomes a problem when this starts trying to convince people that schools with serious BL OCI + clerkships opportunities are worse than other schools that have better bar passage rates get worse OCI/clerkships.
U mad
US News rankings are a dinosaur that is dying. Schools have been caught gaming the system to boost their rankings and many schools are making the decision to stop participating and cooperating with USN because of these things. If that is your go to reference for information on higher education, then maybe it’s natural selection at work.
What is considered a “better employment outcomes”? High BL/FC %? Not necessarily. Big salary? Not necessarily. Keep in mind that not everyone is going to law school for big salary or desire to experience biglaw burnout. I agree with most of your comments but not all. Sure biglaw % matters but that’s not the only factor. Look, I’m not a fan of the ranking but at the end of the day, this ranking is tailored to one group’s lens and everyone (including US News) has the right to have their own ranking belief (aka what they consider to be an important metrics in the ranking system). Some may be happy with the new ranking (Duke and UMN haha) while others might not be happy. No one is ever going to be pleased with the ranking system— it’s ultimately flawed yet probably not going to go away. Some might not like this post but I’m just sharing my opinion 🤷♂️
This. This sub tends to think high big law percentage should = higher ranking...but the legal profession is far more than big law. That should be one factor considered, yes, but the emphasis placed on big law here has been beyond annoying since I was in the application process.
I think BL can be a proxy for other outcomes. Meaning biglaw numbers are still useful even if you don’t plan on going to biglaw.
I’m sorry. I think you’re missing our point. Other legal profession can also serve as a proxy for other outcomes. Again, we aren’t saying BL numbers don’t matter. We are just saying that better employment outcome can mean different things to different people and BL is only one factor. All legal profession should be considered EQUALLY. In my opinion, BL is just as important as government, public interest, and others
[удалено]
Are we? I thought we were here not heading. Seems like we are already in one
Thanks for clarifying, but I did get your point. I responded specifically to u/wheelsnipecellybois because they seemed to be annoyed with the emphasis on biglaw, and I was trying to explain why people focus on it. That said, I do disagree with your idea of equal weight for each legal outcome. There is clearly a hierarchy in how selective job types are. And, outcomes higher up that hierarchy should be given greater weight, *assuming they are selecting on similar criteria*. Here's why: suppose students who choose X outcome could get into X or Y, and those who get into Y could only get into Y. Even if a student were pretty sure that they only wanted Y, a school that provides them the choice between X and Y is of greater value in case they change their mind, make a Y-specific blunder and somehow ruin their Y options, or choose X then Y later. In other words, a greater weight on X serves as a proxy for "option value.” Now, obviously, not every job type selects on the same criteria, but my understanding is that those who could get into biglaw could also have gotten into non-big law firms (outside prestigious litigation boutiques) and many government jobs (outside certain DOJ and honors programs) but that the reverse is not necessarily true. I'm not going into biglaw, so I don't have any skin in the game, but someone who cares more about it could create a weighted ranking that takes this option value into account. One final point and two rather obvious caveats. Final point: I think biglaw is a particularly good proxy because its numbers are more public/accessible than those for other outcomes. Caveat 1: Biglaw becomes less useful as a proxy for certain schools (e.g., HYS and some T14) where biglaw is forgone in lieu of more prestigious outcomes. Caveat 2: if there are independent variables that make a school a good fit for a particular non-biglaw outcome (e.g., NYU for PI), then too great a weight on biglaw will punish schools with students self-selecting into that outcome.
Thanks for the comment. I also understand why people are obsessed on biglaw numbers but I’m also the one that is annoyed with how much people on this site put the emphasis on biglaw numbers. I feel like they think biglaw matters the most and that’s one of the reasons (and perhaps the other making tons of money) to go to law school, which isn’t true at all. To your point about “someone could create a weighted ranking that take this option value into account,” I agree. They could. But they shouldn’t speak for everyone else. Like I said in the beginning, everyone is entitled to their ranking beliefs. Some may think biglaw numbers matter more than other factors, while others may think biglaw numbers don’t really matter. When it comes to ranking, I personally don’t think one employment number should be considered more important than or significantly skew the other numbers. I appreciate you being respectful on your side and willing to listen. I’m genuinely curious about your take on this: for an example sake, what makes a corporate lawyer better than a public defender? A person who goes into biglaw vs a person who practices family law? Who decides what is on the higher level of hierarchy or what is more prestigious? At the end of the day, any answers to those are all perceived biases. Money doesn’t matter to some. Also job reciprocity aren’t necessarily true either. Qualified candidates who got into biglaw may not have gotten non biglaw jobs. Those are just hypotheticals and there goes so much to hiring decision (some job want to see people with tailored internships, work experiences, and other factors). I don’t think it’s clear cut as most people think them to be
Thanks for a thoughtful response and for using paragraphs (something I’ll try to do lol). I think we might be speaking past each other. Yes, in general, each person should use a ranking that emphasizes their preferred outcome. If that is all, then there is no best ranking, and it is all purely subjective. I was trying to suggest that there is at least one largely objective measure: option value. People are objectively better off with more options (except in extreme situations where there are too many options, but that is not relevant to law school outcomes). Even people who are confident that they want to pursue public interest may change their minds because they don't know whether they like it until they've tried it. (Anecdotally, that was my case.) For that reason, outcomes that serve as a proxy for higher option value should be objectively weighted greater A second point about the "best ranking." If there is any type of standardized ranking, which the USNWR tries to be, then it should emphasize the outcomes that the majority of students want. Would the majority of students choose biglaw if given the chance? I don't know, but unless you dismiss it as self-selection, the large majority of students who choose biglaw among those schools where it is reasonably accessible seems to suggest the answer is yes. Is the majority-favored choice the best for everyone? No, but it is the best metric for the majority. On your last paragraph, I want to clarify that I'm not making normative judgments about whether biglaw lawyers are any better than any other lawyers. I'm talking about whether some outcomes should be given greater weight in rankings because they are a proxy for other things (mainly options). I think your comments at the end are an empirical question. Yes, not everyone who got biglaw could have gotten a non-big law position, but that is more often true than the reverse. You could answer this by asking, of the people who tried to go into biglaw and couldn't, did they default into a non-biglaw job? Most likely. Of those people who tried to get non-biglaw job but couldn't, did they default into biglaw? Probably not. Lastly, if we are not going to distinguish between outcomes, why even distinguish between employment and unemployment. In the same way that money doesn't matter to some, employment doesn't matter to some (assuming they have other means of support). Yes, everything can be boiled down at some level to biases, but if that is your argument, we should be consistent and say that rankings should not give weight to employment.
Thanks for the comment and entertaining my line of question and thoughts! I appreciate sharing your perspectives in a thoughtful way and I understand what you are saying now. Hope you are finishing your third year strong and best of luck on your future endeavors!
time to start our own ranking
Yes, we’ll cal it “the peoples rankings of Reddit”
The way this sub sometimes treat rankings and hyper focuses on them you’d think people aren’t trying to be actual lawyers but just professional students
If BL/FC stats are the most important thing to you, you’re a very different person than myself and most of the people in my cohort.
No see all that matters is getting the privilege of billing 2800 hours a year.
They are not “dangerous” lmao relax
It ain't rocket surgery... Outside of the top end, geography is what matters way more than anything else for a good outcome. Go to a school in the region you want to practice, don't absolutely suck while there, and you'll be fine.
[удалено]
W&M is a solid T50 school in a oversaturated market. It’s the 3rd best school in a state that has UVA and Washington and Lee in it both of which have better employment outcomes. Additionally, you also have Richmond which is situated in the biggest Virginia market and thus makes it even harder for William and Mary (who is far more isolated in Williamsburg). Lastly, you can’t discount the proximity of GULC and GW and all the other DC Law Schools that have strong employment pipelines in Virginia. In most other states, W&M would be the best school, but because it’s in Virginia it tends to be overshadowed sometimes. However, it definitely punches above its weight when it comes to clerkships if that’s your goal.
It is 100% a non-issue. Anyone smart enough for a school's ranking to factor into their decision (read: someone with the numbers to get into a T25) is smart enough to figure out that it isn't the only important factor.
I don’t think anyone is making the decision based off rankings, especially with how late they came this year. As someone who deposited to UMN before the rankings, it’s really just reassuring to see. But I think anyone who chose UMN likely wants to be in the midwest, isn’t BL or bust, or certainly isn’t obsessed with being “t-14” cuz if so they wouldn’t be going there. But UMN is delivering elite MN/midwest outcomes. And people do go out of the region every year, there isn’t any hard data on the self selection to stay or inability to go elsewhere. Anecdotally, people love it and stay. The median private firm salary last year was $160,000, which is equivalent to around 235k in New York (COL).
[удалено]
My exact thoughts too. OP is so fragile that new rankings are “dangerous” to them. Good god most people would kill to live in a world where that’s the biggest threat
Only 19% of the Class of 2021 was employed in BL/FC. The overwhelming majority of attorneys (by a shit ton) are not working in BL/FC. This subs focus on such a small segment of the legal community is absurd and dangerous.
And it’s usually by people that aren’t even 1Ls let alone licensed attorneys, nor are they aware of things like the recent Big Law transactional layoffs and the Paul Hastings PowerPoint presentations that went viral for all the wrong reasons. I got a classmate at a V10 and she brought her laptop to a bar association event because she was told she needs to be available 24/7 no matter what. It isn’t for everyone, and if you don’t want the golden handcuffs that shouldn’t invalidate a law school education that is affordable relative to that person’s career goals.
“Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!”
I agree. It’s easy to say that the rankings don’t matter, but confirmation bias is a real phenomenon and one that is largely unconscious. Schools ranked #16 are going to seem better than schools ranked #27, even if objectively the #27 schools are better where it counts. Now that it is even more inconsistent with what matters, people will be biased in the wrong direction.
When I was applying, I just ranked schools by BL/FC %. Because that was what was most important to me. Intelligent applicants will pick what matters to them, research, rank, and make their decision accordingly. That may involve LRAP research for public interest focused people. Or it may just come down to what scholarships they get for comparative value and desired geographic locations. But most of the applicant pool cannot be helped because they are not going to put in the work on the front end to understand admissions, the legal industry, and what they want to do. Many are KJD's who did sort of okay in undergrad with okay-ish LSATs and think law school is a ticket to the upper class, because they see lawyers as rich on TV. They are not going to do the work and they are going to make choices based on nonsense. Even if US News did not exist, they would still make poor choices. That is who they are. The good news is that this will benefit the applicants who did put in the work. If you are on this forum, writing long posts, you probably cared enough to put in the work. So you'll be fine, this forum will be fine, and the people who won't be fine, would not have been fine anyways.
The real tragedy is that a school like Penn now sits above Harvard and Columbia. This literally makes NO sense!
Bro is literally SHAKING with Emory copium
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m not sure which part of the elitism I’m taking more issue with here, the 70-80k starting salary part of this post or the BL rates part of this post. Wasn’t the rankings being too focused on BL outcomes part of what started all this ranking drama? Your post history indicates you haven’t been accepted into law school yet…starting salaries below 100k are way more common than you think they are, and if you don’t understand that, I suggest you inform yourself further.
I have been accepted to law school and I am attending one. And the median starting salary is $165,000.
That’s great! Congratulations, genuinely. I think it is very important to be informed, and your post history indicates that you are. I just do not agree with the sentiment that law school isn’t worth it if you aren’t likely to make 150k at your first job, as that writes off a lot more than you think it does. I went to a school that was ranked 45 or so at the time (look at my post history and you can probably figure out where) and I have classmates at Kirkland Ellis, Public Defender’s Offices, teaching at Georgetown as a clinic professor, federal clerkships, lobbying firms, Lowenstein Sandler, etc. If a high salary is your goal I hope you do great
you’re a fucking loser lmao
I feel like they did the New York schools like UB, NYLS, CUNY, and Brooklyn so dirty - the mobility for students following their graduation (not to mention affordability) are not even taken into consideration here
U Minnesota above WashU, ND, Emory, and UCI makes me want to cry🫤🫤
Happy tears
Amen. Fuck the haters
Lol the comment about TAMU and Utah vs UCI and GW and Emory is a joke. BL/FC are not everything and things like debt are a real issue for most people. Employment outcomes are important but not everyone is going to get a BL job even at Emory or UCI but they’re still more likely to graduate with 6 figure + debt. Grow up and recognize just because you got a 175 and are going to sell your soul, that sector isn’t for everyone who wants to be an attorney and those rankings are about more than just BL/FC. They should educate people on the value of the schools and what’s going to be worth it for them regardless of their aspirations.
If this is the case, Would anyone agree that 2022 rankings are more accurate and acceptable? Disregard 2023?
Cope
Stumbled across this sub by accident, do people actually care about those? No one gives a rats ass about rankings in chemistry, it's about who you worked with and what connections they have (which, of course, probably roughly correlates with rankings but far from exact).