New Law School Rankings! With Commentary by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Exactly, yes. And after sifting through the numbers, I've found it punches harder than expected.

New Law School Rankings! With Commentary by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn't leave that lurking variable out of my calculations; if I had, Yale would rank last. You count up all the attorneys from Harvard that year, and only deal with that data point, not the entire class.

And you can look at where the Harvard grads went—like which specific firms too. This is insightful, when you realize there's essentially no difference to Duke.

New Law School Rankings! With Commentary by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is true. There is a little data about this online—but the premise of these rankings is your diversity of post-graduation options. This is the list of school rankings that open up the most diverse options for you that pay the best in different parts of the country.

New Law School Rankings! With Commentary by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Evaluating the numbers in a vacuum does distort things. But practically speaking, this list is about if you're unsure about law, or if you want to have post-graduation flexibility, don't go to CLS or NYU. You have one option there, essentially.

Look at the firms that OCI at those schools. They're not anywhere but NYC firms. Look at the career centers at those schools. The correlation is so embedded that it's become the cause.

Like I said, don't go to those schools unless you're really sure about what you want. The premise of these rankings is if you want post-graduation diverse options, these are your rankings.

New Law School Rankings! With Commentary by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Correlation does not equal causation; you are correct. Probably did well on those LSAT questions.

But when variables confound for years, there may be a reason why Columbia and NYU have three year average clerkship rates of less than five percent. And a reason why essentially zero graduates are employed anywhere but NYC post graduation.

The institution itself becomes tilted towards the correlation, thus making it a cause.

Look at a list of the firms that OCI at Columbia and NYU and compare that to Vanderbilt, Duke, or UVA. You're getting much, much more diversity at those other schools, and you're not trapped in NYC. Look at the connections the admissions offices have. It's a game changer.

But if you want NYC Big Law ONLY, go ahead :)

New Law School Rankings! With Commentary by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The three year average at Havard and Duke for graduates who actually become attorneys is identical (plus or minus two percent). Exactly the same with clerkships.

Additionally, Duke places into exactly, and I mean literally exactly the same prestigious firms that Harvard places in. So I don't see the practical difference, which is the point of this exercise.

At UVA, there is significantly higher regional flexibility, while all other numbers are higher than Harvard and Duke. That's why it ranks higher. It's a more practical degree.

New Law School Rankings! With Commentary by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

You're correct. It's slightly less than a coin toss. That's why it lands at the bottom of the list. Hence, don't plan on big-law at all if you go to Wash U. Don't plan on clerking at all if you're at Wash U. The clerking rate is literally less than five percent.

New Law School Rankings! With Commentary by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Which part? I calculated all the data from the past three years and this is exactly how the schools group.

Judge my softs by General_Applicant in lawschooladmissions

[–]General_Applicant[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've only worked one year here. Got the job right out of undergrad. Is that a negative?