^It probably depends on what kind of law you wish to practice. Sure, if you want to be a corporate powerhouse of a lawyer in international law, sure going to an Ivy will be better. However, if you want to be your local, small town divorce lawyer, it probably doesn't help and may even hurt because you'll be in massive debt and not be getting paid as an Ivy graduate corporate lawyer.
All schools have their strengths and weakness. For example, I recall you're in academia. Now, if one wants to really be a law professor at a top school, going to Harvard wouldn't be the best choice just because it's ranked #2 by USNEWS since they're more a corporate lawyer machine. It would serve you better to go to U of Chicago or NYU, even though they're ranked a little below. I think people get caught up in the name of Harvard and Yale too much. Personally, I would take Chicago or NYU over Harvard(possibly Yale too) any day. Chicago, to me, is much of a "underdog" school. I say this because people outside of the academic world don't know the caliber of the schoool. The average person would probably think Cornell or Duke have better schools, but they don't, in my opinion.
For my purposes, my top 3 are Yale, NYU, Chicago, not the USNEWS top 3, which are Yale, Harvard, and Stanford.
All depends on your purpose.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."-Mark Twain
Thank you appreciate the support. I finish up on May 13th hand have 3 finals and 2 Marketing plans due for Business Management with a minor in Marketing.
Originally posted by jagmqt: Needless to say, great schools don't make great lawyers, in my humble opinion. And law schools don't teach you how to succeed...
Sure they do. Maybe not always, but far more often than other schools.
Sobek...I've got to respectfully disagree...I think the students make the law school...and look what you have at the top 25 law schools...
You've got the top of class from the highschool, that gets into the best undergrad program and manages to remain the top of the class...by the time they decide to go to law school, the top law schools have the "pick of the litter" from LSAT scores and grades...you assemble that collection of over-achievers in any setting and you're bound to produce great results...
But those kids in the top 25 are reading the same cases from the same law texts that I am...they're studying from the same supplements and horn books I do, they're tested the same way I am, and we take the same bar exams...
What do they have? They do have a strong and prosporous alumni network of previous over-achievers, and access to funds and resources that aren't available to many other schools...Those will add up to better starting jobs and greater noteriety...
jag
[Edit...please don't think I've taken your comments as a slight, either...I understand where you're coming from...also, don't think that I'm trying to put myself out there as a top contender stuck in the wrong school...I'm an old dog learning new tricks and struggle with law school, but I enjoy it and will continue to push on.... ]
Posts: 533 | Location: Michigan | Registered: September 15, 2006
You've got the top of class from the highschool, that gets into the best undergrad program and manages to remain the top of the class...by the time they decide to go to law school, the top law schools have the "pick of the litter" from LSAT scores and grades...you assemble that collection of over-achievers in any setting and you're bound to produce great results...
But those kids in the top 25 are reading the same cases from the same law texts that I am...they're studying from the same supplements and horn books I do, they're tested the same way I am, and we take the same bar exams...
That is an over-simplistic argument. You can not possibly think that the same books/curriculum/bar exam = same results.
Most high schools have access to the same books. All the students take the same standardized exams. Are all the students the same?
The top undergrads use the same text books as the state universtities. The students take the same LSAT/MCAT/GRE. Yet there is a reason why the top schools score far higher on graduate entry exams than your average Chico State.
You really think the alumni network is the major difference?
However, I do agree that a top school is not a requirement for great success.
Originally posted by sobek: That is an over-simplistic argument. You can not possibly think that the same books/curriculum/bar exam = same results.
Most high schools have access to the same books. All the students take the same standardized exams. Are all the students the same?
The top undergrads use the same text books as the state universtities. The students take the same LSAT/MCAT/GRE. Yet there is a reason why the top schools score far higher on graduate entry exams than your average Chico State.
You really think the alumni network is the major difference?
However, I do agree that a top school is not a requirement for great success.
Sure, it's simplistic...but I think we're making the same point...I'm simply offering that by the time the top law schools get the students, they're already the top of the top...because all the similarities throughout education, they're able to determine who the top students are, and they take them...
However, I do think that there are more similarities among law school curriculums than there are at any other level of education (not including other graduate programs)...I know I read almost all the same cases as almost all 1L's & 2L's throughout the nation...however, not all undergrad anthropology or poli sci (or pick your subject) classes will use the same texts, neither will their prof's in undergrad emphasize the same materials or test them the same way...That's why the LSAT is such a huge factor...it allows law schools to find those "top" students again by bringing them all back to a measurable standard...
Also, I do think the alumni network makes big difference...not perhaps because everyone that went to the same school knows the secret handshake and brings them into the network upon graduation...but if you look at the top law firms in the country, and compare the lawyer bio's to the interns they take and the associates they hire...there are a lot of similiarties.
jag
Posts: 533 | Location: Michigan | Registered: September 15, 2006
Originally posted by jagmqt: That's why the LSAT is such a huge factor...it allows law schools to find those "top" students again by bringing them all back to a measurable standard...
jag
Exactly, the LSAT is truly the great equalizer. It certainly isn't a perfect system and there things I don't like about it, but I guess it's the best we have. I mean look, you could have a 3.9 from Princeton, but if you get like a 140, you're not going to Harvard, while somebody from my school can have a lower average and get a high LSAT(i.e 170+) and still go to a top 15. I know my school is listed on the "schools represented" page on Yale Law's website, so I know it's certainly possible.
Alumi definitly makes a difference. I think there is a "look out for your own" mentality. Plus, there's a cycle of graduates from the top law schools getting high salaries. Therefore, they're more likely to be in a position to donate more money to their alma mater. So obviusly, more money equals "better" profs, more programs, and then more top graduates and the cycle continues. It's the old "the rich get richer" kind of deal.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."-Mark Twain
Originally posted by jagmqt: That's why the LSAT is such a huge factor...it allows law schools to find those "top" students again by bringing them all back to a measurable standard...
I don't really understand what you are getting at. Top universities average higher LSAT scores. You can either say they are better prepared, or just a collection of better students. Either way, students from better schools score higher--on average.
Then in turn, the best of the undergrad pool move on to the top grad schools. I don't really see where any equalizing happens. You will always have this "on average" disparity between the top and the ones who didn't make it there.
Originally posted by jagmqt: That's why the LSAT is such a huge factor...it allows law schools to find those "top" students again by bringing them all back to a measurable standard...
I don't really understand what you are getting at. Top universities average higher LSAT scores. You can either say they are better prepared, or just a collection of better students. Either way, students from better schools score higher--on average.
Then in turn, the best of the undergrad pool move on to the top grad schools. I don't really see where any equalizing happens. You will always have this "on average" disparity between the top and the ones who didn't make it there.
The equalizing works like this. Just because you go to a better school doesn't not automatically mean the classes were harder or that you were challanged more. Sure, maybe generally this is the case, but the LSAT is supposed to indicate how much you learned and how much you were challnaged. You can prepare for the LSAT, but there are certain parts such as the reading comp section, that you really can't study for. Sure, you can learn certain tips, but generally, it's about how well you can read a piece of text and answer questions about it. Now, you prepare by reading complicated texts and analyzing them.
So it is very possible that a person at a top school could have filled up their schedule with 100 level electives and not have really been challanged as much as someone who went to a public school and filled up their schedule with 400 level courses, had two majors, and who wrote a senior thesis.
What the LSAT is supposed to do is indicate how good of a student you really are, no matter where you did your undergrad.
I might be a perfect example of this. I go to a mid range public school, but I have two majors and a minor, take between 18 and 21 credit hours per semester, do outside research, and only take language courses and 300/400 level courses. Personally, I think I am getting a better education than somebody at a higher ranked school whom is a communications major, does the minimum to get by, and takes 100 level courses for their electives to boost their GPA.
Personally, I believe a test like the LSAT is made for people like me. If getting is was all in the name of where you did your undergrad, I would probably get screwed, even if I didn't deserve to get screwed. Now, if I get a 170+ while that student who did the minimum to get by gets a 155, I'll be getting in to the better school 9 times out of 10 regardless of where he went to school. Obviously, if his father is like the president, or an alumi who donates millions, he might get in, but under normal circumstances, I would get in.
Granted, I might be the exception to the rule, but I think the LSAT is geared towards people like me. You're 100% though, top schools have higher average scores, but the LSAT is an equalizer for those who didn't go to those schools for whatever reason, but still did a ton of work.
I just wanted to point out that there are exceptions to the "best high school students get into the best colleges and get into the best law schools" thing as well. Again, I'm an example. I didn't do too great grade wise in high school(I did knock the SAT out of the park though), but then one day, I woke up and I went to town and I'm moving up. I went from bad high school student to looking at top 15 law schools as real possibilities.
I just hope I can be an example to younger kids who were in my position in high school and help them reach their goals. I feel that if I can due it, mostly anybody can.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."-Mark Twain
I think we are talking about different topics here. jagmqt initially implied that the ranking of the law school did not reflect the success of the students, aside from mostly an alumn support network. His case was that most law schools use the same materials/curriculum.
I don't find this to be true, on any level of education. Med schools prepare students for the same national board exams. All med schools, more or less, cover what the students need to know to pass the exams. However, I don't find the quality of students coming out of a poor med school just as good as one coming out of a top school.
I agree, standardized exams are the only way to compare students of different quality schools...but this was not the original point of discussion.
Originally posted by sobek: I think we are talking about different topics here. jagmqt initially implied that the ranking of the law school did not reflect the success of the students, aside from mostly an alumn support network. His case was that most law schools use the same materials/curriculum.
I don't find this to be true, on any level of education. Med schools prepare students for the same national board exams. All med schools, more or less, cover what the students need to know to pass the exams. However, I don't find the quality of students coming out of a poor med school just as good as one coming out of a top school.
I agree, standardized exams are the only way to compare students of different quality schools...but this was not the original point of discussion.
I agree w/ jms...and...
I think that the top schools have the reputations they have because they get the top students...not that the top schools are what they are despite the top students...
(and I'll pick on Harvard just cause it's the oldest in the country)
That is to say if the top law school took all students w/ a 150 on their LSAT instead of a 170, they wouldn't be a top law school for very long...they're not teaching anything "special" or "innovative" at Harvard, they are teaching the same law to a higher caliber student (on average, of course)...
There are students at my school w/ LSATs in the 170's...they chose my school because they offered them huge scholarships and the school has a two year program...these kids will be contending w/ any top 10 school grad...the difference will be the school on the diploma...their gamble is that being done in two years w/o debt is a bigger advantage then being done in 3-4 years w/ huge debt...time will tell...
The top schools are not producing the best lawyers...they're taking the best students and teaching them law...
Does that make sense?
I know kids at ivy league schools, along with many of the other top 25 schools in the country...we swap notes and discuss cases...it's as if we sat alongside each other in class...There is nothing they can teach there that isn't available to students at other schools...
jag
Posts: 533 | Location: Michigan | Registered: September 15, 2006
They way I understand the area in which it does make a difference is in legal theory and legal philosophy. You do get schools in the top 10 such as U of Chicago, Yale, NYU that have law professors who are also very famous legal and political philosphers. NYU has Dworkin, and is considered to have one of the greatest philosophy departments around, which includes legal philosophy . Chicago has Brian Leiter(formerly at Texas) on his way as well as Nussbaum. Yale has always been known to have extremely well known legal theorists.
However, Georgia State has a couple of pretty big time legal philosophers who are also law professors, go figure. Obviously, there are exceptions, but those 3 schools are pretty well known for their legal philosophy.
So, that's why I say those 3 schools would suit somebody better if they wished to go into academia and get a dual PhD in philosophy with an emphasis on legal philosophy as well as a JD.
Like I mentioned before, it's all on the area of law you want to be in. If you want to make a modest salary in your hometown or another place that isn't a huge city, going to a top school might not be to your advantage.
Here's an example. I currently live in Buffalo. If I wanted to be the regular lawyer working in personal injury or something in Buffalo it would make no sense for me to go to Harvard, even if I was admitted. The economy is very weak here and lawyers start out at like $35,000. Now, for me to pay upwards of $50,000 per year and come back here with over $200,000 in debt, it would be a death nail. I could never pay off that debt.
Now, as far as being better prepared, do you really know more about personal injury law if you go to Harvard than if you go to the University at Buffalo law school? Eh, i don't know because I never went to either, but I find it hard to believe because as Jag said, it's the same law. Might you be able to come up with certain exceptions and find little thing to get slightly more money for your client? Sure, but you'll get that with experience as well.
I could see where it would make a difference in a branch of law such as corporate law where you might be going up against a huge corporation with a team of lawwyers making $500,000 a year or more. In that case, you're need to everything about the lawyer inside and out, know all the exceptions, and probably a little bit of theory as well. But if you're you're average lawyer(which most are), ehh, go to a good school in the region you want to work in that gives you $$.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: jms2788,
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."-Mark Twain
Originally posted by jagmqt: I think that the top schools have the reputations they have because they get the top students...not that the top schools are what they are despite the top students...
I agree, but those two point are not mutually exclusive.
quote:
There are students at my school w/ LSATs in the 170's...they chose my school because they offered them huge scholarships and the school has a two year program...
A 170 does not mean they got into a better school and chose to go to yours. A standardized exam is not the only criteria. Often they only use the exams and grades as a cut off. The interview and references is the real deciding factor among the serious candidates. A high LSAT just gets your foot in the door. So some classmate bragging about a high LSAT does not mean he could have been a contender at a higher ranked place.
quote:
The top schools are not producing the best lawyers...they're taking the best students and teaching them law...
I agree that the students make the program....but that does not help your argument, but rather supports mine.
It really doesn't matter that the materials and texts are the same at one school from another. It is the level of competition, quality of faculty, and facilities that determines the learning experience.
Here is an example: When I took organic chemistry in college, my high school friend at a UC was using the same exact text book as I was. Very similar lectures. When it came down to exam time, he was given multiple choice questions involving simple nomenclature and identifying structures. We were given free response questions involving detailed steps of synthesis, in which the simple nomenclature and knowledge of structures were something you just had to know to answer the questions, and not something even worth testing. Same material, similar level lectures...but who do you think had to know the stuff better?
There are students at my school w/ LSATs in the 170's...they chose my school because they offered them huge scholarships and the school has a two year program...
A 170 does not mean they got into a better school and chose to go to yours. A standardized exam is not the only criteria. Often they only use the exams and grades as a cut off. The interview and references is the real deciding factor among the serious candidates. A high LSAT just gets your foot in the door. So some classmate bragging about a high LSAT does not mean he could have been a contender at a higher ranked place.
Ehh, I don't know. Maybe you're correct, I know you have experince with this, but take a look at this and tell me what you think.
I mean, a 3.4 is pretty low for a top 14, but it seems to be a-ok if you have a 170+.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."-Mark Twain
Originally posted by jms2788: Ehh, I don't know. Maybe you're correct, I know you have experince with this, but take a look at this and tell me what you think.
I mean, a 3.4 is pretty low for a top 14, but it seems to be a-ok if you have a 170+.
Most schools use a basic weeder formula. They take your MCAT/LSAT/GRE score and your GPA, and they multiply it by a certain factor. Now that factor varies for universities, depending the quality of the school. The trend in law and med school has been to give more weight to the exam score, and a bit less to the grades. At that point, they decide whether you are flat out rejected or you deserve an interview.
After the interview, then they take your interview score and throw it on to your test/GPA score. Some schools weigh everyone even at the interview stage and go strictly by the interview score (which is how we do it). Different schools do things differently, but not by much.
A great score and great grades is not the end all, be all. Some people show up to the interview and they are freaks, or they are complete jerks. These people get handed a rejection no matter how great they are on paper.
I agree that the students make the program....but that does not help your argument, but rather supports mine.
It really doesn't matter that the materials and texts are the same at one school from another. It is the level of competition, quality of faculty, and facilities that determines the learning experience.
Here is an example: When I took organic chemistry ...When it came down to exam time, he was given multiple choice questions involving simple nomenclature and identifying structures. We were given free response questions ...Same material, similar level lectures...but who do you think had to know the stuff better?
I see your point...I just think law is a different animal...remember, there's a bar exam at the end, too...easier exams throughout college don't distinguish who has a better grasp on the material...both may pass the bar...
If an elite school graduates 200 with a 98% bar passage, that's 196 new lawyers. When a tier 4 school graduates 350 w/ a 75% passage rate, that's 260 new lawyers...What is the better school?
Now if that tier one takes 170+ on the LSAT and 99% of their students are 4.0 gpa, and the tier four takes 150+ on the LSAT and a 3.0 gpa...where have educators done a better job? The ones that taught the elite or the ones that taught the mob?
I guess it's all subjective, neither one of us can quantify why these schools are better or worse...and with law, there never is a "right" answer...
I've made it a habit, though, of everytime I read a lawyers name in a big case in the paper, I google their bio...and more often then not, they're from outside the "top" schools...for example, the attorneys that won the $43 billion Vioxx settlement are from Cordozo, St. Louis, Tulane, Texas Tech...Merck's lawyers were from Yale, NYU, Harvard...I check these things all the time...I also check bio's on new CEO's, and the ones just fired, on people featured (both positively and negatively) in Time, Newsweek, on 60 Minutes...the real movers & shakers in my field come from a diverse background and less-than-tier-one schools, not where you'd expect...to me, that's indicitive that it's the students, not the schools...
I enjoy the discussion, though, it's making me think about this from a different perspective...
jag
Posts: 533 | Location: Michigan | Registered: September 15, 2006
]
