Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Most under-appreciated thing about Warren Buffett: he built Berkshire to last well beyond him.  (LAC, at BRK annual meeting via Motley Fool, here.)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)

Private prisons? Why, sure! What could possibly go wrong? (kw)

TNR profiles Susan Crawford (kw)

Berkshire Hathaway is bigger than Warren Buffett.  Manual of Ideas (LAC).

Guns don't shoot people, kitchen appliances shoot people (kw)

Via Glom, Sat Eve Post review of The Essays of Warren Buffett.


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Orin Kerr on The Varying Use of Legal Scholarship by the U.S. Supreme Court across Issues

    • David Schwartz on The Varying Use of Legal Scholarship by the U.S. Supreme Court across Issues

    • Matt on Is Berkshire Hathaway Really a Psychology Experiment?

    • Orin Kerr on The Varying Use of Legal Scholarship by the U.S. Supreme Court across Issues

    • Guy Spier on Is Berkshire Hathaway Really a Psychology Experiment?

    • Griff on The Varying Use of Legal Scholarship by the U.S. Supreme Court across Issues

    • John Mihaljevic on Warren Buffett: Practical Philosopher of Capitalism

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Warren Buffett: Practical Philosopher of Capitalism

    • Arthur Clarke on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Warren Buffett: Practical Philosopher of Capitalism

    • Matt on Warren Buffett: Practical Philosopher of Capitalism

    • Larry Sheldon on Warren Buffett: Practical Philosopher of Capitalism

    • Personal Injury Lawyer on Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma

    • Lawrence Cunningham on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • Guy Spier on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Law School Quality – a comment for potential law students

posted by Alfred Yen

US News came out with its law school rankings today (the magazine is on newsstands now). Ironically, I found out about it while serving on the ABA site evaluation team for another law school. The juxtaposition of learning about a school through a 3 day visit vs. through US News made me realize anew how problematic US News is.

US News serves two purposes. Applicants use it to help decide which law school to attend, and law school faculty/administrators use it to size up their competition in a rather unseemly show of academic vanity. I’d like to address the former.

If you are an aspiring lawyer and want to know the quality of the schools you’re considering, you really must visit the schools in question. Having just done it for 3 days, there is no substitute for talking to people at a school, meeting students, and studying the components of a law school’s program. US News has not done it for you. Numbers don’t tell you what you really need to know about a school.

Can those numbers tell you who teaches the classes that interest you most? Can they tell you whether the legal writing program is rigorous and staffed by experienced professors? Can they tell you whether the school uses adjunct professors who don’t keep office hours, or full-time faculty that are present in their offices? Can they tell you what kind of clinics, externships, or other skills courses are available? Can they tell you whether the school provides good student services?

I’ve now served on site accreditation teams for two schools that I knew something about before going to the campus. Both times I came away with a much richer and more nuanced understanding of the schools’ strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, reputation matters in choosing an education, and US News is in the business of manufacturing and selling it. But, in the end, people succeed in their careers on the basis of their ability. Please take the time to get the information you need to choose the school that will help you maximize your ability.

p.s. I intend to post in the next day or two with suggestions about how to check a school out when you visit.


 March 28, 2007 at 9:18 pm   Posted in: Law School (Rankings)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (9)

  1. stopping by - March 28, 2007 at 10:30 pm

    How in the world can an undergrad learn that level of information about multiple law schools? Have the law schools done their share of distributing full statistical information about their schools? (Average debt loads; bar passage rates; bar passage rates per entering LSATs; jobs and salaries of graduting classes; which profs are post-tenure slackers; which specialities the school is really good at (and bad at)).

  2. M.A.B. - March 28, 2007 at 10:40 pm

    I agree with your statements here. I chose a lesser-rated school which I love, and which I believe has actually given me a superior education. Unfortunately, the market doesn’t give a damn (I’m a 3L).

    As one candid senior partner said to me from across his desk, “If Jesus himself were sitting in my office, and He hadn’t gone to a top tier, we wouldn’t hire Him. It’s just a criteria that we don’t have to waive and won’t. Do we miss out on some good talent? Of course we do.”

    This gentleman was more forthright than most, but the story has been consistently the same.

    If you want an education, visit the schools. If you want a job, look at U.S. News. I have a great education, and the devil of a time getting hired.

  3. Matt - March 28, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    Couldn’t you get at least a pretty good idea about many of these things by reading the web page of the school carefully? They may be a bit misleading at times but most of this information is there.

  4. Dave! - March 28, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    I have to agree with M.A.B. here… academics can grouse all they want about how the rankings don’t really reflect the quality of an institution. But the reality for students and their post-graduation employment possibilities is that the rankings *do* matter.

    I also think that most faculty members (and I realize this is a sweeping generalization and there will be exceptions) actually care more about the rankings than they let on. If you have two candidates for a new tenure track position, both with outstanding publications, both gifted orators in the classroom, I bet the one who went to the higher ranked school gets the job over the guy who went to a “Tier 2 School”.

    Schools complain about the rankings all the time, too, but I’ve yet to see one who puts their money where their mouth is and boycotts the process. If 25% of the USNWR rank is based on peer surveys, who’s filling those out? The same people who give so much lip service to rankings not being a good measure.

    Sure, in an ideal world, the rankings shouldn’t matter. In the real world, the world we live and work in, however, they do.

  5. law student - March 29, 2007 at 9:42 am

    If the schools were genuinely displeased with the rankings, they would not participate in the US News surveys. It’s that simple.

    But the schools do . . . every year. The sad fact is that much of law is little more than ranking.

  6. Michael D. Cicchini - March 29, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    If you’re a potential law student, don’t count on any law school teaching you anything of real value. The quality of your “education” is up to you, regardless of where you go. If you’re smart and take it seriously, you’ll have learned all you can from professors about half-way through your first semester, with the exception of the skills-type or clinical courses, and possibly legal writing courses. Law school is 80 percent self-taught, make no mistake about it. The professors are there to publish and, if they’re good, entertain you in the class room and provide you with the occasional nugget of insight or knowledge. That said, you should decide on a school based on geography, cost of the “education,” and US News rank. You might want to live in a certain area, and you certainly want to emerge with little or no debt, which I hear can be staggering these days. Beyond that, however, don’t underestimate the power of US News. It’s not that you’ll do any better or worse in a job because you went to a “top” school. It’s that you may not even get an interview for the job, let alone the job itself, unless you went to a “top” school. Finally, the very people who condemn the rankings are the ones that rely on them the most. For example, ask any law school dean when is the last time his school hired a professor who didn’t graduate from a “top 15” program, let alone top 50 or even second tier. And if he did hire such a person, it would be a rarity.

  7. Robert Rhee - March 30, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Selecting a law school is ultimately an economic decision. The cost of legal education plus the cost of three years of lost opportunity is enormous. Ultimately, the student signed up for law school as a career choice, which means that “J.D., X School” on the resume must have economic value. Depending on the goal, ranking could be important. If you want a job at the big prestigious firm in New York City, you should attend the most prestigious school as possible. If you want a job in the local prosecutor’s office, going to Harvard may not be necessary. Selecting the school is a combination of ranking, geography, direct cost plus scholarship, and if possible a visit that gives you a feel for the place. Students must also keep in mind that most legal markets are regional, and thus most law schools are regional. National ranking may give some relevant information, but it may be useful to figure out what is the regional reputation of a school compared to its regional peers. If school X is ranked 40 and school Y is ranked 50, but regionally they are considered the same, then other factors may weigh in the choice, for example, tuition, cost of living, and scholarship dollars.

  8. Andy, school teacher - June 14, 2007 at 11:52 am

    “The quality of your “education” is up to you, regardless of where you go. ” – I absolutely agree with Michael. If you need a job at the big prestigious firm in NYC, and if you are smart enough and responsible enough, you will get it. From my experience, people don’t really need teachers after they get some basic education if they need knowledge and are ready to work hard. However, we don’t have necessary conditions for self-education yet. So one gotta select a school. Some schools can be really helpful, some of them – just a waste of time, and it doesn’t always correlate with rankings. And your future in in your hands, wherever you go.

  9. Erika - June 23, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    As a law student beginning this fall, here’s my two sense. I wasn’t prepared to take on $60,000+ in debt for reputation alone. With a very high LSAT (98th percentile) I decided to take the full-ride at the regional school in the area I want to live and practice instead of attending a top National school. Why? Less competitive stress, much less financial stress. I will move and work my current job from home, keeping living income and benefits. My goal is to graduate debt-free… it will happen! Also, like most entering students, I barely have an idea of what the practice of law entails. I did my research thoroughly (talked to Stanford, U Mich grads, etc..)but I come from a blue-collar background! If I don’t enjoy it and I’m not in debt, no skin off my back to change the plan!

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ryan Calo
Claire Hill
Jay Kesten
William McGeveran
Meredith Render
Aaron Saiger
David L. Schwartz
Olivier Sylvain
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress