GO BLUE!!!

Looks like the parties over at Yale. Everyone get those Michigan transfer apps ready.

Finally, confirmation that Indiana Bloomington > Georgetown.

Someone needed to say it.

Any ranking that has each of Harvard, Yale and Columbia outside of the top 5 is bogus.

Check out UCLA's page:

"The Fordham of the West Coast"

Unintentional insult, but hilarious nonetheless.

@7:38 -- Incredible. From your grammar and spelling ability it is clear that you had no chance of getting into Yale, let alone passing fifth grade.

Seriously, "parties"? Pathetic.

Please go back to your TTT and leave the real comments to the big boys.

Penn sucks

7:41=blatant Columbia trolling.

Michigan should be #1.

the NYU thing IS bogus.

Is this your first time on the internet 7:47?

Who knew New York Law School would be so impressive to Vault?

Yeah GW! Just better than mediocre no matter who does the list!

Vault must be a state school grad with a 3.0 GPA and a 160 LSAT. I mean, they're the only people who think NYU is a good law school.

Oh, and thank god somebody at Vault figured out that PENN Law is NOT IVY!

"that put too many factors above GPA and LSAT averages of the incoming class"

LSAT is an exclusionary poll tax that excludes poor/lower middle income and minority students from law school. The LSAT can be "gamed" through time consuming study of byzantine logic games and the purchase of high priced LSAT consultants.

Michigan is like a married couple with one hot person and one fugly. Their kids could be nasty, hot, or most likely, pretty average.

wahoo-wa!

"Good lawyers, but many are unnecessarily arrogant."

I love commentary like this.

Awww children bickering about rankings. Very cute.

I agree with 7:41, a ranking without H, Y, and C in the top 5 is flawed.

How is this survey different from the more complete and accurate attorney ranking score that US News releases?

First, it makes sense that top schools do not produce the absolute best students ready to practice in the big firm environment. Students from Harvard and Yale probably have a greater sense of entitlement on the whole than students from Michigan or other slightly less elite schools. A sense of entitlement is a bad thing for 1st year law associates who really don't know anything. There is also the reality that students from Yale, Harvard, & Columbia are more likely to go into academics (or elite government positions or think tanks), and we all know those types are not generally suited for life at the big firm.

Secondly, the vault survey will not have the impact of the USNWR rankings. I think this is because a lot of incoming students go straight from undergrad to law school, and they are already familiar with the USNWR from their undergrad searching days. Far fewer students have any real familiarity with Vault until they reach law school.

As for the BU/BC debate jab by the second reader opinion quoted above: Be serious. Despite recent ranking trends BU Law is a joke. For circumstantial support interview a few BU Law students.

fuck vault and fuck the whole ranking system. its all fallout from this bullshit thing called prestige where socially inept retards feel better about themselves

As for the BU/BC debate jab by the second reader opinion quoted above: Be serious. Despite recent ranking trends BU Law is a joke. For circumstantial support interview a few BU Law students.

Indiana? Seriously? I wonder who a Biglaw partner would choose, all things being equal, when comparing a 2L whose at the 50th percentile at Indiana and another who is at the 50th percentile at Georgetown. We all know the answer, so Vaults emphasis on "employability" is bull.

Let me get this straight, the question is which law schools firms prefer to hire from and Vault does a survey of "[n]early 400 hiring partners, associate interviewers and professional recruiting staff"?

Umm, newsflash, everyone on this board knows which schools place the best at top law firms; Michigan is not No. 2 and Yale is not No. 10.

Vault's ranking should include an asterisk noting that all surveys were conducted at firms in downtown Bloomington and Minneapolis.

Let me get this straight, the question is which law schools firms prefer to hire from and Vault does a survey of "[n]early 400 hiring partners, associate interviewers and professional recruiting staff"?

Umm, newsflash, everyone on this board knows which schools place the best at top law firms; Michigan is not No. 2 and Yale is not No. 10.

The point is, if you want to see which schools law firms value, see who they hire from. That would seem a lot more probative than some survey thhat gets filled out by the summer intern in the recruiting dept.

How about ranking schools by their average GPA cutoff at Vault firms????

8:18 -- you must be right about that. How could UCLA be 18th, most UCLA grads stay in southern Cali where the local law schools suck.

Average assessment/peer assessment/lawyer & judge assessment

1. Yale -------- 4.85 / 4.9 / 4.8

2. Harvard ----- 4.80 / 4.8 / 4.8

3. Stanford ---- 4.75 / 4.7 / 4.8

4. Columbia ---- 4.65 / 4.6 / 4.7

4. Chicago ----- 4.65 / 4.6 / 4.7

6. NYU --------- 4.60 / 4.6 / 4.6

7. Michigan ---- 4.55 / 4.5 / 4.6

8. UVA --------- 4.50 / 4.4 / 4.6

9. Boalt ------- 4.45 / 4.4 / 4.5

10. Penn -------- 4.40 / 4.3 / 4.5

11. Cornell ----- 4.25 / 4.1 / 4.4

11. Duke -------- 4.25 / 4.1 / 4.4

13. N'western --- 4.20 / 4.0 / 4.4

13. Georgetown -- 4.20 / 4.1 / 4.3

American University, Washington College of Law should be in the top 15.

8:15,

How about neither?

WCL should at least be top 16, if not top 15.

I'm bored.

I'd imagine that, at the margin, this type of assessment benefits good schools with large class populations more so than top-notch schools with small class sizes.

Hence, the large public schools oust the private ones.

8:19,

Not only that, but if there are 400 hiring partners surveyed, and we're talking about a full national survey, then WLRK had no more than 2 partners surveyed, and if they happen to be the 2 that went to non-top 5's, this "coincidence" could have been repeated at many firms producing an extremely skewed and inaccurate result, like the one we see in these rankings.

What I think everyone here can agree on is that you need to be more scientific than a handful of surveys.

Any ranking that contradicts my preconceived notions and assumptions is bogus!

8:32,

IU's enrolment would not classify it as a school with a "large class population." An atty who attended IU said his class sized were half mine, and I went to a private school.

Indiana at 12 and OSU not in the top 25? Not sure how Indiana plays on the coasts, but talk to anyone in the Midwest: OSU > IU.

HAHAHAHAH I love this. Well, anyone who even pays more than 5 minutes glancing at this list is a more-on. The only "list" that matters is the one that translates into jobs and opportunities (academia, business, law etc).

That would clearly be a mix of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Stanford and NYU and then "the rest" following after. I think I've spent 2 mins so far on this, plus the 1 minute it will take to post this comment, so I'm still below my own 5 minutes rule.

Thanks.

True IU is small but there entry stats are on par with Brooklyn Law School. Must be something in the water out there in the midwest that makes 'em good attorneys.

#
# It was reported that the Ohio Football Coach Jim Tressel will only be dressing 40 players for the Michigan game …the rest of the players will have to dress them selves.
# Did you hear that the Ohio State University library burned to the ground? All five books in the library were completely destroyed and the football team is really upset by the fire; they hadn’t colored in two of the books yet.
# Q: What does the average Ohio State University student get on his SAT? A: Drool.
# Q: How do you get an Ohio State Graduate off your front porch? A: Pay him for the pizza.
# Q: What did the OSU grad say to the Michigan grad? A: “Welcome to McDonald’s. May I take your order please?”
# Q: Why is ice no longer available at Ohio State football games? A: Because the senior who knew the recipe finally graduated.

I don't see the point of the people attacking the rankings above. Yes, Harvard has more prestige than Michigan or Virginia, that undebatable. And its fairly well settled that its easier to get a job from Harvard at vault firms that at Michigan and Virginia as well. However, that has nothing to do with what Vault is purporting to do. They are stating how well a first year associate does once they finish law school. Such a thing does not conflict on how much a law firm "values" a law school in hiring, nor does it seek to rank law schools by prestige.

Bottom line, it simply a ranking of what law firms partners think about their associates based on the law school once they are hired. It would seem to me that the comparison that is being drawn, given that it is easier to get a job from Harvard at random firm X, is that above average Michigan students do better than average Harvard students. Moreover, a corollary theory exists here. Perhaps Michigan and Virginia cannot get their graduates into elite firms, and thus because their school is undervalued initially by law firm recruiters, they tend to "wow" partners once they start working.

I'm not saying any of this is the case, I'm just saying that dismissing this ranking out of hand without considering all the factors is pre-mature.

8:32,

I live in the Midwest and work at a respected firm. I have never heard anyone, other than OSU grads, make such an argument. I guess that must be the word on the street in Columbus, maybe even Cinci, but not outside Ohio.

HLS has like 600 alumni with wikipedia pages....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Harvard_Law_School_alumni

Michigan has like 35...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Law_School

Lat must be depressed today to suggest YLS doesn't prepare people for firm jobs. Isn't that what roughly 75% of YLS grads go into? Wouldn't just getting into YLS, getting the name on the resume, be enough "preparation" to crack the top 3 on this list? I am pretty sure that any ranking of this sort would have to do three things: adjust for the percentage of grads going onto federal clerkships, adjust for class size, and then just look at firm placement (V10 placement perhaps). I could come up with my own rank without having some dumb vault workers do it for me. It would almost certainly have Yale ranked #1, Harvard #2, Stanford #3, Columbia #4, Chicago #5, NYU #6. Oh gee, look at that, it's what we all would EXPECT the ranking to show. Anyone care to put the numbers together for an ABOVETHELAW ranking of that nature?

8:32

You do realize that the schools that did well Michigan and Stanford are pretty small compared to NYU, Columbia and Harvard?

This list looks like a function of metropolises. What's the best school that LA firms recruit from? Stanford. What's the best school that DC firms recruit from? UVA. What's the best school that Chicago firms recruit from? Chicago. So all those firms are up there. Props to whoever pointed out that Yale and Harvard students aren't necessarily in it to be at firms, though that doesn't explain Chicago and Stanford. But everyone knows that Harvard is a meaningless credential nowadays. It's hard to get in but come on, the teachers suck.

Georgetown is ranked WAY too high on this list.

8:46

What's your point?

I call regionalism (i.e. ranking parties are more likely to rate a top-rate local-placing school over a top-rate national-placing school). This is due to associate exposure of the ranking parties (i.e. few associates/partners frequently see top national-placing schools at the rate they see local-placing schools).
Because of this, the scores are slanted to where:

1. the schools are more likely to dump into the local market
2. the local markets are largest, and
3. the school class sizes are the largest (this is less important)

So--

1. Stanford University Law School (2)
[top local-placing school -- California (LA/ SF/SD): local-placing? try to find an east coast SLS grad...)]

2. University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Law School (8)
[top local-placing school -- Chicago]

3. New York University School of Law (4)
[top local-placing school -- NYC]

4. University of Virginia School of Law (10)
[top local-placing school -- DC]

5. University of Chicago Law School (6)
[top local-placing school -- Chicago (but with enough national placement to put it under UM)]

6. Harvard Law School (2)
[top national placing school]

7. Columbia Law School (5)
[#2 top national placing school]

8. University of California, Berkeley - Boalt Hall School of Law (8)
[#2 top local-placing school -- Cali]

9. Northwestern University School of Law (12)
[#2 top local-placing school -- Chicago]

10. Yale Law School (1)
[top national-placing school, only low because class sizes are so small -- and fewer of these grads are at firms]

etc.

LMAO.

On Chicago's page:

Student Population:
Male: 95.9%
Female: 44.8%

Well, that was certainly how it felt sometimes, but I am doubting the accuracy of these numbers.

I really can't understand how the hell peopel are commenting that certain law schools are ranked too high or too low. How the hell would you know? Are you a Biglaw partner that reviews associate work?

8:48, my point is that for every notable UM Law grad there are 20 notable HLS grads.

"Vault surveyed only those people who directly assess the value of law school graduates in the real world once they enter the workforce- those individuals responsible for evaluating and hiring law school students. The respondents--who represent over 100 law firms-- were advised to consider the following factors in their rankings: research and writing skills; knowledge of legal doctrine; possession of other relevant knowledge (e.g., science for IP lawyers); and ability to manage a calendar and work with an assistant."

To claim that rankings need to be scientific is bs. What these rankings tell you is that these are the schools that churn out grads that perform well in a firm environment. Does that mean these schools are more "prestigious" than the USNews top 10? No, it just means their grads are more adapted to working at a big firm.

As much as "elite" law schools might not like these rankings, they are probably more accurate at predicting who will be good lawyers. Long & rigorous policy debates, as well as multidisciplinary academic theses, are not going to do much good for you in a firm. The question is: how good are you at working in a team, researching & writing, and managing workload? "Elite" law schools will always be in the top 10 or so, because their grads are so damn smart, but other law schools will outrank them because they churn out worldly, practical grads that are going to be better firm lawyers.

The End.

"my point is that for every notable UM Law grad there are 20 notable HLS grads."

But what does that have to do with the ranking?

I can gurantee you that there is no listings for "superstar first year associates"

This debate is predictable and funny. Those whose school's did well are defending the rankings. Those whose schools did not do well are attacking the rankings. These rankings don't comport strongly enough with my intuition to allow me to put much faith in them. If your school is ranked high in these, treat them like the bible. It doesn't really matter at all.

The same people who criticize Vault.com for this ranking are those who agree with the top 25 firm ranking. I guess Vault's criteria for this ranking aren't good enough because the ego stroke doesn't touch the right people, you know, those who think they're important.

It is always amusing to see people get so excited about a place or two in the most recent set of rankings from the most recent entity that decided to rank law schools. News flash: top national firms hire from all of the top schools.

Don't see a connection between GPA and LSAT on the one hand and firm performance on the other, when you're talking about a group of basically Tier 1 schools. The differences in average GPA between, say, Yale and Penn do not correlate strongly to actual differences in intelligence or whatever other characteristic you want to make a proxy for eventual performance in a firm. Same with LSAT.

Of course, I'm just speaking anecdotally - I had a 174, for example, but I was a crap-ass biglaw associate because I hated the job.

Let's not rope Columbia into the same class as Harvard and Yale. I know someone who had a 3.2 GPA undergrad who got into Columbia. This person was white, but did well on the LSAT. This person is lazy, which explains the low GPA. This person has had trouble working in law firms because of work ethic issues.

I wonder if this will affect next year's US News ranking?

We should all step back an realize that the difference between getting into Harvard versus Michigan or UVA is 3 to 5 more questions correct on the LSAT and a few more As instead of A- in undergrad. THAT SURELY CANNOT TELL YOU WHO WILL BE A BETTER ATTORNEY AT A FIRM.

8:58, I suspect that there are far more posters on here that don't go to HYSCC than go there.

As to another point, does anyone find it odd that the partners don't put their money where their mouth is? The biggest flaw in this survey is that we already know what partners think by the number of grads they hire from the various schools (given the chance). I am surprised Lat didn't point this out.

Or did all the top-tier firm partners REFUSE to respond to this survey?

Truth Teller,

"LSAT is an exclusionary poll tax that excludes poor/lower middle income and minority students from law school. The LSAT can be "gamed" through time consuming study of byzantine logic games and the purchase of high priced LSAT consultants."

This is not true. The LSAT is no different than any other standardized test. Guess what, most people will get nowhere near the top 99% no matter how hard they student, and no matter who tutors them. Guess what, I will never be able to dunk no matter who trains me. Get over it.

Worst rankings ever.

Darn it 5 minute rule guy, you just used up 30 of my seconds.

7:41 is right - no one will seriously pay attention to a list which excludes HLS, YLS and Columbia from the top 5, and frankly, it seems like Vault must have done so for the purpose of drawing attention to the list.

I did not pay 100k to graduate from number 6 when number 2 would have been free. I think Vault is talking about NCAA rankings, not law schools.

8:52

What happens when you control for class size and the century head start? HLS has been around forever and until fairly recently, just a few schools churned out most of the top lawyers. Not really true any more though.

Columbia and NYU grads have much lower GPA's and LSAT scores than Harvard grads.

Michigan was a top 3 school 25 years ago. People forget that. The older hiring partners may still have great respect for the institution.

9:06 Sadly, for the UM grads, these rankings do not even come close to the NCAA rankings.

Ranking whores are idiots. Why would anyone go to Chicago over UVA or Columbia. It is freezing in Chicago, and all three schools offer similar job opportunities. Those who seek to maximize incremental amounts of prestige have issues.

At 8:49: Hmmm.. Michigan sends more grads to NY than Chicago (77 versus 51), and sent 51 grads to California too... doesn't sound so local to me. I would hardly say that Michigan is where it is on these rankings due to a Chicago bias or something. I'm pretty sure Michigan actually places well nationally (maybe not in the absolute top elite firms, but as far as putting its grads across the nation). And then apparently its grads actually do good work and are well-liked. What a concept.

No one from Michigan suddenly thinks we're more prestigious. But I'd rather work with people from Michigan than Harvard, from my experiences with both.

5 Minute Rule-

A ranking that doesn't have HYS in the top 3 usually will be disregarded if that ranking is about "a general law school ranking" or "prestige" or maybe even "ability to get a job in biglaw." But as has been said multiple times, this ranking doesn't claim that.

Wow, I feel really sad for anyone who doesn't go to Yale, Harvard or Stanford. Inferiority complexes apparently last forever

Northwestern? Really?

I'm transferring to Michigan right away. I should have known that my school was actually a TTT.

Yale 1L,

No matter where you transfer, your wanker is still tiny. Sorry.

Social retards sometimes don't make the best attorneys.

People who went to schools ranked #4 through #10 at least had some fun in college.

This confirms that UCLA is TTT.

Columbia isn't that much more national that NYU.

Where is USC?

Midwest bias much? Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconisn are all overrated on that list. Michigan is a top school, to be sure, but not #2, and the others are basically unheard of once you leave the central time zone. Even if the list is not meant to be a prestige list like USNWR, it's not representative of actual hiring either.

Apparently, they interviewed a couple dozen partners from the esteemed firm of Bratwurst Schlitz & Cheez LLP.

Is there some reasonably accessible means to determine which schools have the most "national" placement. I would think Michigan does well in that regard, along with many of the other usual suspects. But I suspect that some top schools are more "regional" than one might think.

VAULT SUCKS,

You chose Chicago over a free ride at Michigan? You are a miserable human being.

VAULT SUCKS,

You chose Chicago over a free ride at Michigan? You are a miserable human being.

Those who rank Columbia or, worse, NYU with HYS are blatant trolls.

9:29 - Anthony Ciolli of autoadmit fame made a pretty decent attempt a few years back. I think Chicago came out as the most national school for BigLaw placement. You can probably find paper with a web search.

Ciolli is a reputable guy.

Huh. Just, huh. These rankings don't make a whole lot of sense to me. I think numerical rankings are nonsense, but if I had to group the top schools into tiers I'd say

Tippy top:
Harvard Yale

Top: Columbia Stanford Chicago

Very good:
NYU Michigan UVA Duke Penn

I think that jives with the general perception of people in my firm. If we're just talking about biglaw cred, I think that Fordham probably belongs somewhere in the top 25 at least.

Now I really regret choosing the money at CLS over need-based aid at SLS - a 6 rankings place difference in Vault demonstrates a massive prestige gap whereas the 1 rankings place difference in US News was probably just a statistical fluctuation.

Texas is 22? Get real.

9:50 - if you think the perception of Duke is any different than that of Northwestern, Cornell or Gtown then you are sadly mistaken, friendo.

UVA is the best!!! The students have personality!! That is very important with employers. It is not enough to be a good lawyer, you have to be well liked, too.

Go Iowa! 19!! Woot.

Whatever.

Iowa ahead of Cornell, Georgetown and UCLA???

This list is a joke.

not sure why anyone is taking this list seriously. did the vault describe their survey methodology or give any information about who/where/what they surveyed?

Among UCLA, Cornell, Duke and GTown, I'd rather go to UCLA. Hot chicks, nice campus and in SoCal. GTown is a lawyer factory. Duke is the home of JJ Redick. Cornell is the equivalent of the NIT.

The average LSAT for UVA in 1995 was 162.

Frankly, I don't think any hiring partners should be judging recent graduates based on their outdated perceptions. They are probably the equivalent of a modern day Dozo grad.

I like 8:23's idea - it would be more interesting I think to know the different GPA cut-offs firms have for law schools.

9:28, ever heard of a Midwest work ethic? Apparently hiring partners have and the Vault rankings seem to indicate that they feel it holds water. Go Iowa!

Went to Michigan, and the 8 jillion dollars I will be paying back over the next 30 years wasn't worth the money. Never wanted a big firm job, but when student loan bills come calling, what else can you do?

I'm sure no one on this board will listen or care, but if your life doesn't revolve around how much money you make and what kind of car you're driving this week, stay away from taking out huge loans to pay for school. It's just not worth being a slave to debt.

10:19,

Does the same sage advice apply to those who want to afford decent educations and health care for their children? Those who see no shame in the desire for prestigious work?

Put it this way: You don't know shit about big firms. You only know that you aren't cut out for it.

10:19 --
I bet you're a Hawkeye.

Iowa is the most underrated school in the country. The students are amazing, the faculty is amazing, and the administration is wholly less than stellar.

Midwest work ethic = drink beer, eat cheese, marry a fat chick, and pick up a few OWI's while you're at it.

Just because Harvard and Yale are "tippy top" law schools (to steal language from 9:50), it does NOT mean their grads perform well at big law firms so there is some truth to these Vault rankings.

We automatically assume that the Harvardian on the deal will rock before we even start working with them.. but lo and behold, the Harvardian knows nothing more than the UofM grad or the Fordham grad in his or her class. To excel at a firm, you need ON THE JOB EXPERIENCE and as someone stated above, you gotta be WELL-LIKED.

Lat, we ought to rank schools based on ohw well their grads dress for the job.

Hey... 10:25 -- In Illinois we call them DUI, not OWI.

Sucka. Fool. Foolish sucka.

Hehehehe. According to Vault, the average entering student at Stanford has a "69" on the LSAT.

hehehehe. 69.

10:31,

What if you are operating a vehicle that is not technically driven, e.g., a plane or your mom?

Zing! --
My Mom is a very driven woman. She is also as pure as the driven snow.

lol, Indiana (!) in, Illinois out completely. So much for lolwereasgoodasgeorgetown.

most "comment posters" are likely HLS or Columbia students/alumni.

Lat, you should consider doing a small survey about posters on this blog. I guarantee you the findings would be eye-opening, and would give readers some perspective.

10:42 --
I agree, completely. Great idea.

10:39 --
Illinois is crap. (Not really, it's ok. It ain't as good as G'Town, though. Also, not as goo as a lot of the other Midwest schools).

For those wondering, the correct ranking of Midwest schools is:
1) Chicago.
2) Northwestern
3) Michigan
4) Iowa
5) Minn
6) Indiana
7) Wisconsin
8) Illinois
9) Southern Illinois

Midwest is most certainly not overrepresented. Absent ties all four of those schools are T25 in US News, and the firms that recruit there confirm it. Indiana suffers because less firms recruit there than at MN or WI, but its still a very good school.

No one respects Illinois other than US News, and for good reason. Most transparent attempt to boost ranking ever.

OSU is conspicuous by its absence, but I would guess that the ghoulish football factory mentality of the undergrad rubs off on OSU grads, either in perception or reality. Illinois (land of the frat) is probably the same.

Midwest is most certainly not overrepresented. Absent ties all four of those schools are T25 in US News, and the firms that recruit there confirm it. Indiana suffers because less firms recruit there than at MN or WI, but its still a very good school.

No one respects Illinois other than US News, and for good reason. Most transparent attempt to boost ranking ever.

OSU is conspicuous by its absence, but I would guess that the ghoulish football factory mentality of the undergrad rubs off on OSU grads, either in perception or reality. Illinois (land of the frat) is probably the same.

Hail, Hail to Michigan the leaders and the best!

General rule of thumb for MW schools other than Chicago/Michigan/NW:

Iowa is underrated.
Wisconsin is underrated.
Indiana is underrated.
Illinois is (very) overrated.
OSU is overrated.
Minnesota is about where it should be.
Iowa, Wisconsin and probably Indiana are as good as Minnesota.
Minnesota and Wisconsin have better job feeding due to location relative to work.

10:57 --
You're pretty much spot on, right there. I think Minnesota might be a little underrated, as well. Also, I'm not sure Wisconsin is that heavily underrated.

OSU/Illinois are pretty much teh sux.

harvard and yale = TTT

Hey Kudzu,

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Chicago places a much higher percentage of its little class in Chicago than does Michigan, and Michigan places about 25% of its class in NYC, with another 25% or so in California. So keep your moronic theories to yourself.

Hi 10:49, how's Northwestern treating you?

The reason why NU ranks so poorly may have something to do with the fact that 1/3 of its graduates who take the bar in California CONSISTENTLY fail. We're talking about 6 straight years of being the worst "top" school. It's embarrassing, and you think the hiring partners in CA don't notice that year in, year out they have to give some dumbass Northwestern grad a month off to study for the February bar?

11:04 - Minnesota is not underrated. At all.

Midwestern kids bust their ass. Why should it surprise anyone that their schools are well represented and University of Spoiled Californians, for example, is OUT?

They clearly sampled crappy firms.

The problem with the Vault rankings is that they assume a school sends the same students to a V5 firm as a V50 firm as a V100 firm. This isn't the case. The firms already take school prestige into account when they hire, so comparing Columbia to Fordham within one particular firm (for example) doesn't tell a whole lot about the schools, because the Columbia student might be a median at the median for her class, but the Fordham student might be significantly higher up compared to other Fordham students. If law firms were perfect judges of prospective candidates, one would expect to see absolutely no difference in the relative abilities of the graduates of different universities, because it would have already been internalized. Obviously that's not actually the case, but it's instructive as to why these rankings might not be particularly useful

JM, "not particularly useful"? I'm having a tough time seeing how this ranking is useful at all, other than providing entertainment.

Anyone that goes to Michigan or UVA over Harvard or Columbia is an idiot. Just because hiring partners think Stanford et al. might prepare students for firm life better doesn't necessarily mean that their firm would dip farther into their classes rank-wise. I challenge someone to submit confirmable empirical evidence that this is not the case (e.g., that cut-offs for Michigan are lower than cut-offs for Harvard).

11:30 - USC 1L watching OCI go up in smoke.

Stupid Kid,

If thinking that there's more to life than billing 2300 hours a year and not knowing your kids names, then I am proud to say I'm not cut out for it! I'm only hanging in there now at biglaw to pay off the excessive price I paid for my law degree.

I just don't get what's so attractive about prestige. It's just one big hamster wheel...it's a search for meaning that will never end or satisfy. At the end of the day, no one really cares where you went to school, how much money you make, or how many hours you bill. There's just more to life than that.

All I was doing cautioning people who aren't concerned with whether their clients are Fortune 500 companies or who don't want to spent their time shackled to a large debt to consider that before picking a school...no need for foul language. If you want big firm life and don't mind the debt load, go for it and good luck!

3L

That's exactly the point. This study didn't try and show any of that. The better performance by Michigan or Stanford could have been due to a number of factors like a better legal practice program or more clinics (or even them teaching more black letter law). Who the hell knows. One thing we know for certain are that people who are changing these vault rankings into "law school rankings" are completely missing the point.

If anything these rankings are of "how likely you are to be a good associate at the law firm you will end up at based on the law school you attend."

this is yet another confirmation that the vault rankings are untrustworthy. indeed, the vault firm rankings place skadden in the top 5, which all agree does not reflect skadden's actual prestige (quite low) among nyc firms. and here, putting michigan and uva ahead of harvard... it's just absurd on its face.

10:48 and 10:57, correction to midwest list: WUSTL >

4) Iowa
5) Minn
6) Indiana
7) Wisconsin
8) Illinois
9) Southern Illinois

First!!!!

Not a good sign when you have to remind people your law school exists.

Uh, wustl undergad :

The omission was correct. WUSTL is a toilet. Everyone knows that.

Any ranking system that does not have the king of law schools (Harvard) at or very near the top is absolutely bogus.

wustl Undergrad.... If there's one thing we can ALL agree that Vault got right on this list, it was the decision to not include Wash U.

You're lucky you're an undergrad... you have time to pick a real law school.

What do all top tier law grads have in common???

They all got into Michigan!

Ha. Zing!

Remember who is #11:
VANDY
The little law school that could!

I cannot believe it! I turn out a thousand JDs every year from my diploma mill and more people don't hold them in higher regard?!?

good to see vandy holding its own :)

Michigan = underrated, GO BLUE, NO.1!

People choose UVA and Berkeley over Columbia/NYU and Chicago all the time. In 2000, it only took a 3.3 GPA to get into Chicago. Guess what? Everyone who is normal still gets a good job.

Why the F!$% did we let Leiter go? We should have just caved on his demands for a gimp suit. Now we're really sliding in the rankings!

While some may quibble with these rankings, I hope we all agree that Cornell is the best law school in America!