Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is beyond sad and pathetic that all of you care about the law school rankings at this stage of your careers.

Law firms care about where you went to law school until the day you die or retire. It matters for people's careers. It matters for who we hire as junior lawyers. It's not mere vanity.

+1

Gotta love the anecdotal poster in big law from 25 years ago though. Fact is the profession breeds elitism.

It's not surprising. Thee is so much fungibility in legal practice Anyone can do it, really.

Actually, no there are a lot of bad lawyers out there. Any litigator that has practiced for a more than a few years can tell you this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ranking is a joke for putting Wake Forest ahead of UNC and putting Mason in a tie with W&M. Any Virginia resident who takes Mason over W&M or North Carolina resident who take sWake over UNC is foolish.

doesn't wake place more in dc and nyc than unc?

Yes, Wake is a better school. UNC's reputation far outpaces the caliber of its students. It is a hard undergrad to get into because of a mandate that 80%+ of students be NC residents. The education is no better than any state school. A UNC degree has cache in and around NC, and it's the degree of choice for the clubby Charlotte/Raleigh outposts of the big firms, but that reputation fades among hiring lawyers at big firms in the places that matter.

Anonymous wrote:This is SO dumb. GWU is the same school it was last year, as is GWU. Washington and Lee increased 12 spots. They are the same students they were a year ago. This is such a stupid arms race.

I agree. The rankings are so dumb! They are just America's answer to a caste system. The law schools in the bottom half are mostly regional and are respected in their region. I know plenty of people who have gone to these "low ranked" law schools and they are all doing just fine in life. I don't think less of them becausome of some stupid magazine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is beyond sad and pathetic that all of you care about the law school rankings at this stage of your careers.

Law firms care about where you went to law school until the day you die or retire. It matters for people's careers. It matters for who we hire as junior lawyers. It's not mere vanity.

It's not mere vanity, but the justification is still unpleasant.

The reason firms will hire from Columbia but not NYLS has nothing to do with the quality of the curriculum. Big law attorneys pride themselves on learning nothing useful in law school. No one cares what you did in 1L torts (that's what Barbri is for). They care even less about your seminar on historical jurisprudence in sports law (unless the professor was famous). Where you go to school and how well you rank only matters because it signals how "smart" you are. Why do you think biglaw hires after students have completed only 1/3 of their education? They could give undergrads an IQ battery and spare them $180K, but that would be a PR nightmare. Instead, they leave it to the LSAT and law schools.

Yes, it's problematic. Some of the best lawyers I know went to low ranked schools, and some of the worst went to T14s. And before anyone claims sour grapes--I went to a T6 and considered myself only competent at best.

no - not pr nightmare, but i believe actually illegal by duke v. griggs power and other BS 'disparate impact' lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is beyond sad and pathetic that all of you care about the law school rankings at this stage of your careers.

Law firms care about where you went to law school until the day you die or retire. It matters for people's careers. It matters for who we hire as junior lawyers. It's not mere vanity.

It's not mere vanity, but the justification is still unpleasant.

The reason firms will hire from Columbia but not NYLS has nothing to do with the quality of the curriculum. Big law attorneys pride themselves on learning nothing useful in law school. No one cares what you did in 1L torts (that's what Barbri is for). They care even less about your seminar on historical jurisprudence in sports law (unless the professor was famous). Where you go to school and how well you rank only matters because it signals how "smart" you are. Why do you think biglaw hires after students have completed only 1/3 of their education? They could give undergrads an IQ battery and spare them $180K, but that would be a PR nightmare. Instead, they leave it to the LSAT and law schools.

Yes, it's problematic. Some of the best lawyers I know went to low ranked schools, and some of the worst went to T14s. And before anyone claims sour grapes--I went to a T6 and considered myself only competent at best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is beyond sad and pathetic that all of you care about the law school rankings at this stage of your careers.

Law firms care about where you went to law school until the day you die or retire. It matters for people's careers. It matters for who we hire as junior lawyers. It's not mere vanity.

+1

Gotta love the anecdotal poster in big law from 25 years ago though. Fact is the profession breeds elitism.

It's not surprising. Thee is so much fungibility in legal practice Anyone can do it, really.