2

TTThis is old news, MysTTTal

I am perfectly OK with every single one of the schools WSJ lists getting fisted by reality. Dear Fordham grads: Grab yer ankles and prophylacticly lube it up. Reality is about to crash into your rectum.

I didn't have the time (or the money) for an LSAT prep course, and I did just fine. Ed board, top-10 law review.

Future ATL Headline: Georgetown plummets in new U.S. News rankings!

2 months old!

Leiter makes an interesting point that part-timers might bring something else to the table. Its therefore curious that in his law school rankings he focuses on the LSAT as an indicator of student quality - not dedication, seriousness or experience. Curious indeed.

2 months old!

solution: don't go to a TTT law school

8: What do they bring to the table other than gray pubes and tangential rants about their life experiences when called upon in class?

About 3 years ago Catholic slipped out of the top 100. It seems like they have made serious efforts to game the system. very tacky....

11, their perspective is valuable. You've never benefited from a different perspective? Without perspective, you'd only get the majority point of view. It's not wasting your time when you have to hear for the third time about how they talked an officer out of writing them a ticket in their twenties, but didn't have the opportunity to come to law school until their forties. That's perspective my friend. You need it.

It's all a scam, but it sounds like part time students are already getting the short end of the stick. I'm sure they have to pay similar tuition and I doubt they're able to cash in the same way full time students are.

Georgetown and GW are in BIG trouble if this happens!

American University --heading for the TOP 10!

That's great 5, but why don't you use your massive intellect for a second to realize that many of your peers did use prep courses, and the courses helped them tremendously. After this exercise you could take a step away from your exalted thrown of LSAT achievement to realize that your personal experience isn’t the norm for everyone.

Do part-time students get a special law degree?

Do law school applications contain a box to list how much time was spent studying in undergrad and preparing for the lsat? And since when does the legal world care how little time was spent failing?

It is not like the relevant part-time programs impacted by this are the only potential places for these extremely diverse applicants to receive a legal education.

The only factors any ranking of law schools should take into account are the quality of a school's graduates. For example, the number that have secured highly competitive positions of employment in private practice, public interest work, academia or judicial clerkships. Also to be taken into account under a sensible ranking system would be the long-term career accomplishments of a school's graduates - judges, ABA Presidents, recognized leaders in a practice area, etc.

Does it matter what the LSAT scores and undergrad GPA's of a school's admitted students are if that school turns out a bunch of underperforming d'bags?

signed,
night student who graduated cum laude, inter alia, and got a good firm job

leiter argues that the formula for rankings should be designed to achieve certain kinds of enrollment demographics? come again? it's not the business of USNWR to choose among various enrollment scenarios and attempt to implement that through a ranking system.

leiter argues that the formula for rankings should be designed to achieve certain kinds of enrollment demographics? come again? it's not the business of USNWR to choose among various enrollment scenarios and attempt to implement that through a ranking system.

The only factors any ranking of law schools should take into account are the quality of a school's graduates. For example, the number that have secured highly competitive positions of employment in private practice, public interest work, academia or judicial clerkships. Also to be taken into account under a sensible ranking system would be the long-term career accomplishments of a school's graduates - judges, ABA Presidents, recognized leaders in a practice area, etc.

Does it matter what the LSAT scores and undergrad GPA's of a school's admitted students are if that school turns out a bunch of underperforming d'bags?

signed,
night student who graduated cum laude, inter alia, and got a good firm job

17:

A minor premise of Leiter's statement is that, with more time to take "fancy LSAT prep courses," part-timers would do well enough to be accepted to full-time programs. I'm just using a counterexample to show it's not a necessary condition. And certainly Leiter would grant that it's not a sufficient condition either. So what's the point of the statement?

FIX THE SERVER

US News Rankings = TTT.

Mystikal = Tool.

I agree with 11; furthermore why do we include black people and mexicans in our classes as well. Honestly, what in the world could a URM provide to a legal discussion anyway. Also, after we get rid of old people and URMs in our classes we should start purging fat people as well. Finally we should allow women in class with us, but only to look at, they shouldn't be allowed to talk.

P.S. this is a sarcastic post.

16: American University couldn't make the top 10 of "Best schools with 'American' in their name."

US News rankings only harm legal education when law schools change their practices in response to the rankings.

US News should tweak its system every year to use progressively more ridiculous criteria and see just how much these monkeys (deans) are willing to dance for them. I look forward to 2012 or so when the most heavily weighted criterion in the rankings is the percentage of tenured professors who can juggle while riding a unicycle... you'll be able to walk into a faculty meeting at NYU and see a guy in a clown instructing Ron Dworkin and Sam Issacharoff.

I knew of certain evening students who "gamed" the system by be a full-time student in a part-time program. They also thought the curve was lower in the evening, because the evenings were a "lower-grade" student -- of course, b/c they were working full-time.

I actually thought this was a pretty "crafty" way to game the system, anyone else do this?

17: "exalted thrown" = never felt this good to be tossed.

"guy in a clown " = "guy in a clown SUIT"

-28

Leiter's comment implies that older folks may not be inclined to "game" the system like younger applicants, most of whom are frighteningly aware of the difference between law schools even at the most minor levels -- say, the difference between Stanford and Chicago.

I'm willing to congratulate anyone who presents me with an argument for why older folks are an asset. Class discussion doesn't require their input; most study groups work best when the members study alone; and they take away jobs from younger candidates who can't compete with their years of experience. If they already had a good career, why switch?

28: Wait, is the instructor wearing the clown's skin a la Silence of the Lambs?

28: That would give a whole 'nother meaning to the term "joke school."

23, I agree with you that some people will do well without the added help of a test prep course; however, some people are greatly benefited by these courses. The statement that these courses aren't always available to everyone is directly pointed to those individuals who would benefit from one of these courses but was not able to take the course. If you want to link this to some kind of logic pattern you would need to use groups rather than neccessary and sufficient conditions because nec suff conditions aren't going to paint the entire picture. Bascially you have a group of people who will always do well on the LSAT, a group that will do well with help, and a group that will never do well. The people in the middle group are the ones of interest here, and the point is that these people are getting screwed because they don't have access to a class that some other people do have access to.

Now if we had more time we could probably turn this into a logic games question...

YOU SAID:
> Instead, we're getting marginal law schools trying to game a method of data collection, while a magazine tries to punish the offenders.

ASSHOLE. The world doesn't revolve around the top 10 schools---especially when you quote the valid point that "part-time programs serve older, working students, who . . . bring levels of dedication, seriousness, and pertinent experience that enrich legal education and the legal profession."

Seriously, the vast majority of part time students could give two shits about "TTT" or making it into "BIGLAW." Most are going to law school to fufill specific objectives, not because "they don't know what else to do" or whatever other reason smart college shits apply to law school and then exit the practice of law within a few years because they didn't do their due diligence before applying to law school (e.g., asking the question "What do lawyers do?" would have helped a lot of you shits out) and now realize that they don't want to be a lawyer.

No wonder you are writing this blog, Elie Mystal, you are one of the shits that found out they didn't like being a lawyer, and yet you continue to inflate these law school shits egos and preceptions that rankings matter; otherwise you are at a "marginal" school. FUCK YOU ASSHOLE. Way to be a part of the problem.

36, why so serious?

George Mason Law is also guilty of being a rankings whore.

Disagree with 11 and agree with 13, 19/22, and 26. I was a part-time student who worked at a biglaw firm during the day. The majority of my classes were in the evenings, though I did take a few day classes. While I can't say that all the students in my evening classes were great (they were not), they were certainly more interesting, and diverse, than those populating the full-time sessions.

What a life the day students must have had - not having to work, taking two classes a day, spending an hour or two "reading" (i.e., wasting time) in the library, and finishing up by boozing the rest of the day away!

Which law school is best if you want to work in Bratislava?

35:

Fair point. But there will be plenty of people in the full-time pool who can't take a prep course, just like there will be a group in the part-time pool who can't take one. And I'll grant you your three-group breakdown of LSAT takers. But why should the U.S. News rankings reflect the scores of one group, but not the other? As for the logic game...7 test takers are admitted to 7 different law schools. Walter took a prep class and just graduated college. Sally just graduated college but did not take a prep class. Albert is a successful business man....

32:

Truly, you are a moron. You must go to AU, right?

32 -- Everyone knows you don't go full retard on ATL, man. Its just common sense. Damn boy, you stupid.

39: What about those of us who spend the rest of the week working editing law journals, tutoring, serving on student-organization committees, writing papers, and competing in moot court? I don't have the time to "booz[e] the rest of the day away."

/s/ 5

Don't link to Leiter. He's just using this part-time issue as a wedge in his continuing attempt to end the rankings system. It's unfortunate for schools like Case Western (whose dean was quoted on Leiter's blog) that they're forced to be ranked nationally against every other law school in America, where a fairer system might only show them against their regional competition. But, the rankings are the best, albeit rough, measure we have to judge schools against one another, and I'm certain USNWR makes that point patently obvious each year. In the end, students who want to live in Cleveland or Ohio end up at Case or somewhere similar, and I'm sure its enrollment numbers have done fine since the rise of the rankings.

As for part-timers, I never thought that law school or law practice was something that could be approached in a part-time way and I still feel that way. And, honestly, their deeper life experiences never helped me to understand the law any better. Doing well in law school has almost nothing to do with understanding how to hold down a job and raise kids.

It'd be nice if schools like GULC and GW could maintain their programs because they obviously fulfill a market demand, but let's be honest-- if GULC and GW's national reputations are at stake here, they're not going to sacrafice them for their part time programs.

Bratislava loves the Fried Frank.

42 and 43: No, but I feel like playing the devil's advocate and making three more important points:

1. Law school is a privilege allotted to the intelligent and hard-working; it is not a right. If a part-time student wants to get into a law school (any law school), then he or she should earn an LSAT score that qualifies them to attend that law school. One policy implication would be that some part-timers may not be able to attend law school, but, IMO, it's not an entirely unfair one.

2. Most part-timers have presumably had or have careers. Because of their better employment prospects (tied in with this statement), their law school will matter less. Look at any elite IP firm and you will find plenty of Yale PhD./obscure JD types.

3. I don't think that schools should close their part-time programs, but, rather, allow certain people to take courses on a part-time basis. This should solve the problem.

4. US News haven't presented us with cogent reasons for why the part-time calculation makes sense. How does it help prospective students choose schools?

Rankings should be abolished. Many students attend non-HYS schools based on factors external to the admissions process itself, namely family and financial circumstances. Yet, because of these rankings, these viable candidates are penalized for apparently making the "wrong" choice by going to a "lesser ranked" school that maybe provided a cheaper education or more geographically feasible option. There are plenty of bright, hard-working attorneys who graduated from non-top 25 schools. They have made partner in V100 firms, have clerked at the federal level, and are doing just fine. But they face many more obstacles than others simply because their law school isn't a USN&WR "top 5".

Abolish the rankings and candidates will be reviewed on their own merits, not the merits of the institution they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for an automatic foot in the door. Those who open the doors with their own feet are just as good, if not better.

GULC wipes UVA's ass. Always has, always will.

To all the GULC 1L's about to begin their great ass wiping journey, I would stock up now on 3 ply before your part time classes overwhelm you with work.

11: You my friend, no your not, are an idiot. I have news for you full-timers expressing sentiment similar to 11's. We part-time students laugh at you and your miserable, unimportant existence. Sure, pick on the errant part-time freak who doesn't know when to shut up or what to say, but that person is more likely the exception, not the rule. Unlike you 11 & 13, you both are truly an accurate representation of your full-time class mates. What the fuck do you know about anything? Sure, you have high SATs, LSATs, GMATs, whateverthefuck, but guess what, when you talk, no one is listening, even your pretend friends - You bring nothing to the table, you have no experience. You likely never hired or fired someone, or managed a team, or wrote business plan, or started a business, or applied for a mortgage, or raised a family, or married. So shut the f#ck up about part-timers gray pubes and tangential rants.

and I meant post this 2X for emphasis

11: You my friend, no your not, are an idiot. I have news for you full-timers expressing sentiment similar to 11's. We part-time students laugh at you and your miserable, unimportant existence. Sure, pick on the errant part-time freak who doesn't know when to shut up or what to say, but that person is more likely the exception, not the rule. Unlike you 11 & 13, you both are truly an accurate representation of your full-time class mates. What the fuck do you know about anything? Sure, you have high SATs, LSATs, GMATs, whateverthefuck, but guess what, when you talk, no one is listening, even your pretend friends - You bring nothing to the table, you have no experience. You likely never hired or fired someone, or managed a team, or wrote business plan, or started a business, or applied for a mortgage, or raised a family, or married. So shut the f#ck up about part-timers gray pubes and tangential rants.

and I meant post this 2X for emphasis

48: sure. Why don't you call the magazine and ask them to abolish their rankings? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear your arguments.

Yes, there are "plenty of bright attorneys who graduated from non-top 25 schools," but the rankings allow prospective students to understand that there is a prestige proxy that will affect them throughout their career: I dare you to tell me, with a straight face, that a Columbia graduate and a Tier-II graduate at the same ranking will have similar options.

51: that was a great tangential rant. Thank you for ironically fulfilling 11's argument.

Now, could you give him a cogent argument for why older folks bring something to the table? What can you tell me, as a student, about equitable remedies that a bright twenty-five year old couldn't?

Who wasn't working while studying for the LSAT? The studying went on during the summer -- summer jobs are the norm. I didn't see the need for a prep course -- just did practice tests on Saturday afternoons. Got a 173. What's more, I took bar bri while working biglaw -- that was way more intense than any LSAT course. It was rough but totally doable.

LSAT prep courses are for tards. You don't have to know anything to do well; you just have to get faster. Nothing helps that besides practice. If you need a prep course to help you with reading comprehension and logic games, you probably should consider another profession, because the test really isn't hard.

That said, it's totally possible to take an LSAT prep course while working full time. If you can't juggle that schedule, you *definitely* should consider a different career path.

Therefore, this is a meaningless reason for justifying full-time versus part-time LSAT differences.

50/51 = genuine class

52: A Columbia graduate and a Tier-II graduate SHOULD have equal options UNLESS AND UNTIL a side-by-side comparison is made between them.

It is PATHETIC and WRONG that a Columbia graduate who has a 3.0 GPA from the top 50% of his/her class would have greater options available to him/her than a Tier-II graduate who has a 3.5 GPA from the top 20% of his/her class with moot court/journal membership.

Other factors aside from PRESTIGE must be assessed by employers: extracurricular activities (mock trial, moot court, journals), publications, student government, etc. Grades mean very little in the practical world.

A prospective law student does not need a list of law schools from the omniscient US News to figure out that Harvard is a top law school. Come on. He/she also does not need the US News to figure out that once students get into Harvard, most just coast through because, thanks to the US News, Harvard students have a ball during their three years, knowing that the hardest part was getting in and that the easiest part will be getting a job.

56 -

You lost all credibility when you mentioned that student government experience is an important factor that should be taken into consideration in employment decisions.

Since when does organizing a law school prom = competency?

So we are supposed to ignore these law students in the rankings simply because they "might not have time for fancy LSAT prep courses?"

Um, if you can't fit a once a week evening Kaplan course into your schedule, how the hell are you going to fit law school CLASSES into your schedule?

Weak argument.

50/51: way to use your not You're. . . totally taught be something there.

32-If "older folks" bring nothing to the table, then why are full-time students always clamoring to get into the evening classes? Answer: Because your classmates think you're an assh*le.

Well said 39, 50/51.

29 - Do you live under a rock? Of course daytime students try and game the system. They'll pull whatever trick known and unknown to tilt the odds in their favor. Jeez.

50/51: Get off your high horse. If your experiences mean anything to anyone, you would have had to be good at your job. But you weren't at your job. In fact, you either voluntarily quit due to low pay or you were canned. I know this because no one with a decent job decides to give it up in the middle of their life to invest gobs of money into a part time JD. The expected value of the degree on it's own is crap, but if you factor in that only TTT's have PT programs, you're looking at investing 4 years and $160k for a $55k/year job. There is absolutely no reason why I should respect you. Have fun, silverback.

"50/51: way to use your not You're. . . totally taught be something there. "

I are a loser.

50/51

all of y'all hating on the career changers - call me after your third or fourth year of practice in big law. Truth.

and Love,
Robert Half

57,

Student government activities include student senate, student judicial court, liaison to faculty hiring committee. It is conceivable that social organizations plan law prom, but come on. There are social chair editors on law journals, too. Employers can look beyond that.

I knew people at my law school who were on the judicial board of the university, served in the honor court, were officers in other substantive organizations, and interviewed prospective faculty. These are important experiences. Perhaps they all do not fall within the umbrella of "student government," but how else would you classify them?

63: Word.

56: as a lawyer, you fill a market demand. Like it or not, there is demand for firms that are filled with graduates of schools like Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago. That is why they earn big bucks. When there is market demand for a decent graduate of a lower-ranked school, then those students will earn money.

Moreover, you contradicted yourself when relating the 20% TTT figure and the notion that "grades are meaningless, anyway." And I won't even bother to discuss the idea that pre-laws don't need US NEWS in order to know that Harvard is a top school. Sure, but what about Virginia, NYU, Michigan, and Chicago? Those aren't obvious winners to anyone.

Let's face it: students look at LSAT scores as determining factors of prestige. They don't need US News to tell them that Virginia, NYU, Michigan, and Chicago are highly selective. Also, LSAC provides that information, at least it did when I registered years back.

Grades are meaningless, but employers use them as a gauge. The term TTT and Tier-II are quite different, 66, so you ought to re-read 56's post and not misconstrue it. Clearly, you were schooled well at whatever lovely institution conferred upon you a juris doctor.

There is and will always be demand for STRONG lawyers. Doesn't matter where they come from. Graduates from third tier schools have prevailed over HYS graduates in the past, and they will continue to do so. A degree from Harvard, Columbia, and Chicago does not guarantee a firm or a client anything. All it does is permit the firm to inflate billables because they can tout a "Harvard" lawyer, who bills at $400/hr while watching Slingbox or listening to Pandora all day.

56 - You are clearly someone who did not get into any of the prestigious schools and are now trying to make a worthless argument while conveniently ignoring an important assumption. YOU KNEW THE EXISTENCE OF THE ENORMOUS PRESTIGE FACTOR IN THE LEGAL PROFESSIONS WHEN YOU WENT TO LAW SCHOOL. Are you trying to convince us that you went to a lower-ranked school just to try to prove a point? If so, then you were either really stupid or deluded.

The rankings exist and fair or not, their effect exists and is known by everyone. People work hard to go to HYS because of the opportunities that HYS provides. Those who get in are the those that proved themselves better qualified, at least up to that point in their lives, than those who do not. This is the reason that HYS graduates get the opportunities and T2 graduates do not.

Anticipating a future argument from you, I'll squelch it now. For those that choose to go to a lower ranked school for scholarship money, they are knowingly taking the gamble that a the immediate cash savings will justify the loss of prestige.

Stop with the GULC hating.

My experience at Fordham was that the PT night program was part older/second-career students and part border line students who weren't admitted to the FT day program, with a dollop of true gunners who figured it would be easier to compete against these two groups of students and end up with a very high GPA.

Fordham games the rankings b/c it allows the PT night students to transfer to the FT day program (and graduate in 3 years) after 1L year. I would say about one-half to two-thirds of the night students did so.

But for the rest of us, PT night law school was a blessing. Otherwise, those of us with full-time jobs, families, etc. could never have gone to law school. And what's wrong with allowing us to do so?

To #32 ("they take away jobs from younger candidates who can't compete with their years of experience. If they already had a good career, why switch?") - REALLY? Do you know how much harder it is for older students to get Biglaw jobs? Even with excellent grades. And is it forbidden to switch careers? Maybe I was bored with my previous career. Maybe I had a career but it wasn't good. Maybe I wanted to make more money. Maybe I wanted to change the world. Does it matter why I choose to go to law school later in life, as long as I am smart and hardworking? You may feel differently in 20 years when you're a burned-out lawyer.

- Proud Graduate of Fordham's Night Program, Now at a V20 Firm

61 - Listen, I was in a very successful career and miserable. I was very good at what I did and I have enough money to pay for law school, cash. I could have continued making money (close to or above first year salary) and lived out my life that way. I am 43, happily married with two kids. Think of it this way. When you are 43 you too will be miserable (if the studies are accurate), making lots and lots of money, but you won't have law school debt. So what? You'll be burned out, on your second or third marriage, with a some addiction to be named later. You'll be just like Elie in a few years, looking to get out. I should respect you, ha, that's fresh.

55 - Thank you. I think. Ha.

53 - I'll give you props for noting the irony. Even I had to laugh.

In my experience, most part-time students are still struggling with the basic concepts of walking erect and forming complete sentences. That's not the type of experience that enhances classroom discussion.

64 -

90% of the people I have known who were heavily involved in student government were interested in every aspect of law school except learning to be an attorney. Most of them were not in the top 1/3 of the class, hardly any were on law review, and most of them skipped classes regularly for things like the student body election campaigning.

While I do not mean to knock them as a whole - It is a bit ridiculous to group "student government" experience in the same category as high grades, journal experience, etc.

I don't get the whole argument of "what do older/part-timers bring to the classroom?" I'm in a part-time program, and I don't go to class to enrich the lives of the students around me. I go to learn, get a degree, improve myself and add to my long list of qualifications when I finally get out with a JD - thus making me more valuable and more marketable than I am now. If I make friends or somehow "enrich the classroom" that's fuckin' great. But I'm there for me, and not any of the other students.

So I don't really give a shit whether or not the school I'm at is ranked because of my LSAT (for which I took a prep course). I'm there for me. Hopefully the work I do will somehow benefit the school through something I publish or through my later accomplishments, but I'm not there for the benefit of the fresh-out-of-college 23 year old sitting next to me, as much as they're there to "enrich" my classroom experience.

33-year-old alzheimers super-star

These pretzels are making me thirsty.

Bravo 74, bravo.

I don't get the whole argument of "what do older/part-timers bring to the classroom?" I'm in a part-time program, and I don't go to class to enrich the lives of the students around me. I go to learn, get a degree, improve myself and add to my long list of qualifications when I finally get out with a JD - thus making me more valuable and more marketable than I am now. If I make friends or somehow "enrich the classroom" that's fuckin' great. But I'm there for me, and not any of the other students.

So I don't really give a shit whether or not the school I'm at is ranked because of my LSAT (for which I took a prep course). I'm there for me. Hopefully the work I do will somehow benefit the school through something I publish or through my later accomplishments, but I'm not there for the benefit of the fresh-out-of-college 23 year old sitting next to me, as much as they're there to "enrich" my classroom experience.

33-year-old alzheimers super-star

71, feeling a little cranky? Need a nice afternoon nap?

61, I'm in the PT program, was top 5% of my class overall, and work for a V25 firm. You're TTT, not law schools having a PT program.

79, although it's technically correct to say that you work at a V25, it's kind of disingenuous to say that when you're not on partner track. It's kind of like saying that you have a supermodel that you bang every night without telling us that she's been dead for two months. Technically true but disingenuous.

I'll be 34 by the time I graduate pt law school. Assuming one went to a law school where Biglaw recruits, have decent grades etc., would my age hinder my biglaw job prospects?

Geriatric night students at my TTT went on tangential rants all the time . . .

78 - Zzzzzzzz

71

It was no big deal, right 82?

80, funny post, but not true. I'll be part of the 2009 summer associate class. Please explain how that doesn't put me on the partner track.

YOU CAN'T BE ON PARTNER TRACK IF YOU'RE 50 YEARS OLD.

71 - guinea tee wearing, Dinobili smoking itinerant worker

WHY THE HELL NOT! The fact that you never had a real job before Big-Law is hardly the huge bonus you think it is. Someone with experience in consulting or finance who came to law in their 30s or 40s and then comes up for partner near 50 is going to have a hell of a lot more to offer when it comes to business development than you. They've actually convinced a client to hire them before -- while all you've ever done is paperwork. You may think you're hot shit as a 34 year old 8th year, but you still don't have a book and you don't have a clue how to get one.

When you get a bit older, you'll realize that clients like to hire attoneys that inspire their trust -- someone who's worked outside of law and understands the business world.

I agree with 71. I had a successful and well paid engineering job prior to law school. I choose to make the switch to a legal career because I wanted to try something different.
I am currently attending law school part time and working part time. The school I am attending is not a top tier school but I was still able to secure a job with a vault top 25 firm. I think it had a lot to do with my prior work-experience.

86, I'm in my twenties. I went to law school after working in the electronics industry for a few years. I was offered a position as a technical adviser at a law firm shortly after starting law school and switched to PT. Making money and having your tuition paid for is a great opportunity, despite prolonging the amount of time that it takes to graduate. I envy the amount of time that FT students have to devote to their studies, but don't think that there is a direct 1:1 correlation with the amount that you learn. If you haven't worked in a demanding career for a few years, you haven't truly learned how to be efficient. I suspect that many 1st and 2nd year associates are unprofitable for the same reason.

88...I've been waiting for someone like you to come along and back me up!!!

50/51

88 will woo partnership committees with BUSINESS JARGON. "I should be a partner because I think outside of the box, am not afraid to shift paradigms, have realized key learnings, while understanding areas for personal development, and focusing on value-added improvements to MY WALKER"

htfh

I used part time law students as urinal cakes all the time in law school, it was no big deal.

#89, it's not your years of glamorous experience, it's your science background, which enables you to do I Pee. I think a lot of us are wishing we'd gotten a B.S.

Wow, this is one of the most immature threads ever on ATL, and that's saying a lot. #4: I look forward to the day when you are lubing it up for a Fordham grad.

Those of you who don't think that older students bring anything to the class discussion have no idea what you are doing in law school. The problem is not with night programs, it's with schools like Fordham and Georgetown letting weaker traditional students in through the evening program back door. It would be a pity if either of those schools discontinued their "real" evening programs.

I thought everyone entered GULC through their back door.

Here's an actual idea that may be a compromise on this "part-time statistics for US News rankings" debate. Why not have only include part-time students who actually change over to full-time? You can include these students' statistics if and when they make the change since its not going to make much difference whether their statistics count one year or the next.

This will make the loop-hole for "back-door" full-time 2Ls much more difficult once law schools realize that they'll take a hit in the rankings while still maintaining the viability of the part-time program for "real" part-time students. I don't see many students trying to "back-door" their way into Georgetown or GW if they knew that they'd have to be a part-time student for 4 years and law schools will have one less method of gaming the system.

This approach isn't perfect, but its a hell of alot better than the current system and won't completely disadvantage actual working part-time students.

The LSAT median of GULC PTers was somewhere around 164 the last time I looked - which still meant that they did better than 90%+ of LSAT takers - and have a higher median LSAT than any school outside of the top 20 or so. The GULC PTers I knew weren't "gaming" the system - they were older with families, worked on the Hill or for the government, or were in the military. Schools that allow gaming the system and let in 22 year olds with lousy LSATs - UConn, Seton Hall, SMU etc. - aren't top ranked schools to begin with and I don't understand what that has to do with GULC's PT program.

Anyhting that will reduce the number of law students and lawyers is a good thing.

Too many misguided, unfortunate people are wasting their time and $$ going to like T4 law schools, T3 schools at night etc.

It should be a little more like medical school, where some people just don't get in ANYPLACE.

89, 94 - It was both. Scientists and engineers that transition into law just plain have an easier time.

I know quite a few people from T2 schools in BigLaw that could really only do thatbecause of their good science background.

IPGEEKNYC

sad but true but there are going to be HELL OF A LOT of PISSED OFF alum if fordham doesnt drop their part time program or make it equally as hard to get into if keeping the part time program causes a drop in the rankings. I will be one of them - but for this legal profession ranking does count and i do not want the value of my degree devalued because fordham is GREEEDY for the extra tuition money. im sure the same goes for GW-GTOWN

68- for whatever brightness you claim to profess, you certainly fail in the proofreading department.

FWIW, I did exceptionally well at my TOP TIER law school, accomplishing more than most do at slightly higher ranking schools, and I clerked, and I worked at big law, and I'm debt-free, and I control the direction in my life, not a faceless law firm to which you're ankles are currently shackled right now. Don't assume that people who didn't go to Harvard didn't necessarily get in. In the end, money talks louder than pedigree. Always has, always will.

Reading this thread made me GULC all over myself.

I'll be 34 by the time I graduate pt law school. Assuming one went to a law school where Biglaw recruits, have decent grades etc., would my age hinder my biglaw job prospects?

102 - I don't try to proofread all of my anonymous posts to make them perfect because frankly, I write well enough off the cuff. "You're" life seems fine and I'm sure you worked hard for your success. But you made your choices and I'm sure you knew what decisions you were making, prestige-wise, when you went to a slightly lesser ranked school. Was it for a scholarship? I don't see a mention of one. Why do you think my ankles are shackled any more than yours now? And you didn't work for the money when you were in Biglaw?

Regardless, it that doesn't change the fact that the legal profession is incredibly prestige-oriented and everyone knows that. Those that turn down HYS do so knowing what they're giving up and the vast majority of those accepted end up enrolling at HYS. Whiners like 56 who have this sense of entitlement from doing above-average at a T2 school are the ones that annoy me when they pretend to not know what they clearly knew when they went to a T2 school.

For whatever brightness you seem to think you possess, you focus on your singular life as an example of something that disproves a widely known and accepted fact of the legal profession. And frankly, no one ever said that non-HYS lawyers fail in law so I don't really know what you're trying to prove.

68

Why not just have a separate ranking of PT programs? It's not like someone who's going to Seton Hall PT is on the same competitive playing field as someone who's FT at GW.

Damn, the GULC is getting pretty thick in here.

97 has a point, but without those that transfer to FT after 1L some PT programs would simply die out for the lack of enrollment, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
BTW one of the worst abusers is Cardozo with a PT program automaticalliy switching 100% of its students to FT after 1L.

US news should only rank the T10 and then all other schools should be closed and demolished.
HTH.

Seton Hall was letting in a lot of part time students with very low scores this year off their wait list. Their part time program is half their class. It will be interesting to see if they fall just the 13 places mentioned in the article or fall farther this year, WAY overranked.

How would one have time to go to a part time law program yet not have time to take a prep course for the LSAT? Makes no sense.

"It should be a little more like medical school, where some people just don't get in ANYPLACE."

I guess you never heard of Grenada, huh? ANYONE can go to medical school, if they have the money. That's not a very good example.

112 -

Then you are the guy who went to Off-Shore Medical School. SERIOUS stigma...and perhaps the exception that proves the rule.

And this is a way smaller group of people than the say bottom 25% of law students.

I betcha its still harder to get into even Grenada med school than into the bottom-rung law schools.

112 -

Then you are the guy who went to Off-Shore Medical School. SERIOUS stigma...and perhaps the exception that proves the rule.

And this is a way smaller group of people than the say bottom 25% of law students.

I have no problem with part time programs - - there are dumbasses out there who went full time, just as there are "wicked smaht" people who went part time. Whatever. Do what works for your lifestyle.

BUT - - I DO think a law school should be held accountable for the "stats" of the students it admits in both programs. Top schools shouldn't be resting on their laurels of being a "top school" if they allow admission to students that fall below their standards.

Like the rankings or not, schools shouldn't be able to take money from sub standard students, then not have that count against them - - at the end of the day, that school is sending that sub par student out into the world to practice law as their grad. The law schools should be accountable for ALL of the students they accept tuition from and give degress to.

Besides, law schools shouldn't be able to pick and choose which of its students, part time or otherwise, to be included in its stats for ranking. That is like allowing the WORST ranked school in the country to simply select ONLY it's top 10 highest LSAT / GPA students to represent their student body stats. (You know, the really smart guy going to a shitty school because he got a full ride or his daddy is an alum or something like that.)

Yeah, they don't allow that to happen, but it's essentially the same thing as excludomg the part time students from the ranking calculations. Either way, it's picking and choosing.

I know 2 students who went to GULC part time. They didn't work, dominated the PT program against many of their working peers, finished top 10%, transfered into the full-time program, and got BigLaw.

Pretty sweet deal if you abuse the system right.

95: Awwww, it looks like #4 hit close to home for you.

Damn you, GULC and your ever open back door! Damn you!

If biglaw firms think these top 10% GULC PTers performed well enough to be given biglaw jobs then why do you care? If firms thought they were being fooled or abused or that they wouldn't be good associates they wouldn't hire them.

119 - it's an inflated rank. These are full-time students enrolled and competing in the part time program with part-time students. It's an easy way to abuse the system.

Don't get me wrong, they'll probably be fine biglaw drones, but if GULC thinks that they are good enough to graduate with a degree, why should they be afraid to include them in their numbers?

GULLLLCCC!!!

take a look at endofesq.com--its a hoot--forget about bonuses and start thinking about saving yourself from the profession

32 et al - I went into OCI (when I did) thinking I'd be at a disadvantage because I went straight from college to law school with no work experience, and ended up getting 4/5 v5 offers. Coming from a regional NY law school.

Partners actually said after I accepted at v3 (is this sufficiently ambiguous?), that they liked I was probably more "malleable" than someone who worked.

The only thing I learned - BS, BS, BS, and thank the Law Review gods.

I honestly don't get what the big fucking deal is about this. If the "PT" students are part of a segregated class, then it doesn't make sense to include them in their stats in the ranking framework.. Unless and until some hard evidence can come out that the presence of a part-time program which is completely segregated from the full-time students nevertheless deleteriously affects the full-time experience, why give two shits if the PTs are brilliant people with day jobs or mentally retarded? Segregated PT programs are as (ir)relevant an indicator of what one's FT experience is going to be as the quality of the university's sociology department.

On the other hand, if the PTs are integrated into the cirriculum with the FTs, I can't see a reasonable argument for NOT including their statistics in the rank.

I actually cringed a bit for the Ghost of the Former WSJ to see this story on the front page this morning. This type of shit used to be in marketplace - now Rupert Fuckface is making it front page material. Hell, let's throw out the whole paper and just sell the Personal Journal.

124 - The point is that part time students are not part of a segregated class. Schools admit a LOT of nominal part-time students, who study full-time, and accept them into the full-time program at the end of 1L year.

It's a BS end run around the US News rankings system. This artificially inflates the LSAT/GPA of the class profile and improves their ranking. Nobody's against PT programs on principle; schools just need to be accountable for the students that they are graduating.

Transfers statistics should be included in the rankings. That way, NYU, CLS, and G-Town can be docked for accepting people with far lower credentials than the entering class and be penalized for preferring money to those students admitted through the normal process.

116 is correct and 119 is not. Firms see grades and school. For whatever reason, how you got those grades is not relevant. Even those who don't tranfer into the full-time program get the G-Town degree. Thus, G-Town part-timer is in a better position in many ways than a Fordham or Emory full-timer with similar grades. Even though, a Fordham or Emory full-timer has on average, better grades and LSAT scores.

I would like to reiterate though if US News includes part-timers than should also penalize schools that accept a large number of transfers. NYU and CLS would like to take a bigger entering first year class but choose not to do so b/c they can't maintain their LSAT and GPA medians. They get around this by taking a transfer class that is almost the size of a 1L section. The transfers benefit, the school benefits, but the current students lose out.