Chicago troll

BU > bc

Another worthless ranking

Suck it MysTTTal

BC sucks!

Michigan grads' job prospects are clearly better than those of Northworstern or Cornell grads.

Does this take into account school size? Yale and Stanford are far smaller than the schools above it on the list.

Do a story on her:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/10/11/a-conversation-with-elizabeth-wurtzel-author-and-first-year-lawyer/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Yes! Another variation of this post...

Please act like it's still Columbus Day

8: of course it takes into account school size. Look at the breakdown as a percentage of mean class size over the last 15 years.

8 -- Yeah. Leiter controlled for class size.

Worthless ranking.

Doesn't Leiter just look at web firm bios to see where the lawyers went to school?

Given the attrition rates at most law firms, I'm not sure that's a great way to conduct a study, especially if the study is in any way interested in first year hiring.

Interesting idea for a list, but the methodology is flawed. Leiter uses a seemingly random group of firms for his list (probably to enhance Chicago's rankings), and he doesn't discriminate between head and satellite offices. Off the top of my head, where's Munger? Irell? Boise? and why include MoFo, Jones Day, or A&P? They're good firms but I don't see how they count as any more "elite" than a firm like Gibson.

Wachtell
Cravath
Skadden Arps
Sullivan & Cromwell
Davis Polk
Simpson Thacher
Cleary Gottlieb
Kirkland & Ellis
Covington & Burling
Paul, Weiss
Williams & Connolly
Sidley Austin
Arnold & Porter
Jones Day
Morrison & Foerster

He included Jones Day, "Clearly" Gottlieb, MoFo and A&P in the list of "super elite firms." One might reasonably call into question why firms such as Gibson and Latham were not included in favor of a MoFo. A&P, in particular, has fallen far from where it used to be. It's a heavily northeast-centric list of firms.

He included Jones Day, "Clearly" Gottlieb, MoFo and A&P in the list of "super elite firms." One might reasonably call into question why firms such as Gibson and Latham were not included in favor of a MoFo. A&P, in particular, has fallen far from where it used to be. It's a heavily northeast-centric list of firms.

Boston College's John Kerry School of Law = TTT

Finally. Pretty accurate ranking...especially the data on the importance of geography.

US News is a joke - just look at the number of Fordham and Brooklyn graduates at the V10.

Oh, my, Brian Leiter has devised a ranking scheme that places the law school that employs him near the very top. Where have I seen this before...?

8 and 12-

In addition to controlling for class size, you also need to control for prestigious government jobs. Several of my classmates at Yale accepted excellent positions in federal government right out of law school, which is surely a much more difficult accomplishment than getting a Vault 24 job. But by Leiter's methodology, if a large percentage of a law school class did that, then it would actually *hurt* the law schools ranking.

18 = subtle anti-Dozo troll

"That is clearest when schools share a regional market. Boston College was, for quite some time, ranked ahead of Boston University in U.S. News, but it is quite clear that BU dominates BC at the best firms in the Northeast corridor."

Except for the fact that BU was twice as large as BC during the 1980s and 1990s. BU eventually cut its class size in half around 2000, but the number of alumni at large firms is obviuously going to be higher when the school used to graduate a class twice the size of BC.

where are Gibson and Latham? what a joke!

Leiter should do something more neutral like use all v50 firms. To just pick and chose firms makes it sketchy and a lot less legitimate.

"Vault 24"

Why 24?

Boy, that Yale law school just isn't very good, is it?

20. Agreed -- many government and public interest jobs are more difficult to obtain than big law associate gigs. I'm inclined to agree that Columbia is marginally better than NYU, but you surely can't determine that from a ranking like this. Far more top NYU students head straight into the public interest world than at Columbia, and that achievement is not reflected here.

22: Agreed. Leiter did not adjust for this discrepency, which creates a large flaw in the conclusion. Typical Leiter. I wonder if anyone has ever told him, because god forbid he did some research into class sizes at the law schools he studies.

Gibson at least has a search engine that doesn't tell you whether someone is an associate unless you click on each bio individually....I have no idea why Latham didn't make it, since their search engine seems pretty easy for his purposes.

Yale, NYU and Berkeley are underrepresented in "elite firms" because their grads tend to gravitate towards government / public interest type work.

Chicago #2? Makes sense I guess. When I was there, I knew a guy who got an F in a class (translated over from their # grading system) and still got a job at one of the top biglaw firms. It was shocking to me.

He didn't pick and choose firms you idiots.

He used the first 15 firms according to vault rank that let him use his search methodology.

JD is super elite?? They don't pay bonuses in DC (which is where the managing partner is). 160 + 0 does not indicate super elite in my mind.

HARVARD is underrepresented because of all the clerkships its students get.

It would probably help if some of those posting here actually read the description of the ranking methodology as well as the caveats about the results. Most objections here are addressed directly. Leiter used the Vault list, but skipped those firms that did not have adequate search engines. Pretty straightforward. If he'd wanted to tilt it to Chicago, he did a shitty job, since there are only 4 firm offices in Chicago, compared to something like 40 on the two coasts. And if you follow the link back to the earlier study some kid Sullivan did on 'national' placement, you'll see Chicago does just as well there too.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1168423325385

The NLJ already did a similar study, but not based on how many currently still work at the top AM Law 100 firms. Much better study based on methodology.

Anthony Ciolli needs to review this methodology before I accept it.

30 -- Agree with you. Grads from those schools won't have any problems getting jobs at "elite" firms.

Just b/c he couldn't use some of the actual elite firms' search engines to do his study does not validate his use of non-elite firms for his study...I do not understand why that concept is so difficult for some of you to grasp...

WHEN DOES BONUS SEASON START?

Why is Brian Leiter such a moron? Or maybe he just has an agenda. This methodology of starting with a list of "top" firms, fiding out how many graduates are working there, and then working back to a list of schools, does not provide the rankings we are looking for. Some consumers of legal education want to know what schools give them the best opportunity to work at a top law firm should they want to do that. Fine. But Leiter's methodology won't capture it. There may be a lot more Columbia grads than Yale grads at Davis Polk. Maybe even a higher percentage with respect to class size. But if you think your chances of landing a job there are better from Columbia than from Yale, you are kidding yourself. Also, there are lots of Yale, Stanford, and Harvard grads at super-prestigious boutique firms in D.C. or San Fransisco doing major litigation or IP work, and making a lot more money and doing more interesting work than they would at Cravath. There are also many who pass up prestigious firm jobs to take fellowships at the SGs office, or other highly selective government jobs. Why don't we get real for awhile and realize that these rankings of career prospects make absolutely no sense if they fail to reflect reality. Leiter's might come closer than PR's, but they are still deeply flawed and not particularly useful.

This ranking relies on the assumption that Vault is 100% accurate. There is no doubt these firms are excellent, but the list needs to expand to paint a more clear picture of what's going on.

22: Genius. Leiter pwned.

If you use the ABA data on PI and government placement (available, for example, on the LSDAS website), NYU still places substantially worse than Columbia. The "equivalency" of the two schools, placementwise, is a bit of a myth. If you do the math, accounting for all the various types of employment, the elite firms go about 10% deeper in the Columbia class- in other words, being top quarter at NYU is like being at top third at COlumbia, in terms of job opportunities.

I agree with 42. Also vault loses a lot of its meaning outside of New York for what firm is elite in the market. For example, Davis Polk NYC >>> Davis Polk DC or MoFo SF >>> MoFo DC.

The methodology that he uses in that "study" makes me want to puke.

First, the firms that he uses are incredibly dumb for national comparison purposes. Is there anyone at BC or BU that would rather be at Sidley Austin, Jones Day or Skadden than Ropes & Gray, WilmerHale, or Goodwin Procter?

Second, as some people have mentioned, BU was enormous for decades. There is often a lot of ribbing and rivalry between BC and BU, but I am pretty sure that nobody at either school would agree that one "dominates" the other. I go to BU and have plenty of friends at BC and over the past three years, I have yet to see any advantage to going to BU over BC in that people with similar grades at each school get the same quality offers.

Obviously the original study was garbage since lots of people that go to Yale don't have to worry about paying back big loans and they can actually get the type of public interest jobs that are highly desirable.

So if Leiter is going to include Skadden Boston as a "super elite firm" over Ropes or Goodwin Boston, and if he is going to not account for dramatic changes in class size over the course of decades, then enjoy his stupid poll and I will enjoy convincing you that ice cream consumption in summer is what causes the temperature to rise. People start eating ice cream as summer starts causing a cold substance to disappear, and the temperature historically has gone up! Fool proof!

So Lieter relies on one somewhat arbitrary list of what the top firms are (Vault) to continue his tired rant against another somewhat arbitrary list of what the top law schools are (US News).

At least TTTexas didnt make the list this time

*Files application to transfer from YLS to Columbia next year*

44, please elaborate. CLS, is a far worse school. The evidence is that Aubrey O'Day, from reality tv fame, was able to gain acceptance there:-) That is about as persuasive as your claim.

PS-Leiter, ruins any credibility he has by miraculously ranking Chicago so high on every list despite the fact that Chicago is generally seen to be a school on the decline.

Old news because ATL is on a government holiday schedule.

Where's Cooley on the lisTTT?

The study is highly flawed. NYU, used to have a smaller class size than they do now. I believe CLS used to be larger.

"*Files application to transfer from YLS to Columbia next year*"

I hope you are not seriously considering a move that, assuming even that Leiter is completely correct, takes you from the No. 6 school to the No. 1 school. The social cost of transferring does not justify such a marginal improvement. Transferring from YLS to CLS reveals suspect judgment.

For these rankings to be useful you would have to know that you wanted to go work at biglaw before law school. However, if you have the goal of working at biglaw before law school you should not even go to law school. You should kill yourself. Ipso facto, these rankings are useful not for picking a law school but for determining who should and who should not kill themselves.

49 -- "generally seen to be a school on the decline"? "generally seen" by whom? Federal appellate judges? (no) V5, V10, V24 (I agree with a wtf on this choice of metric), V50? (no) Academic hiring? (no)

My guess is that Chicago is "generally seen to be a school on the decline" by those at peer schools (CLS, NYU) who chose not to attend Chicago. This is an example of both selection bias and cognitive dissonance. Obviously, YLS, HLS, and Stanford are better schools than Chicago, and this doesn't show up in Leiter's flawed rankings. And query whether Chicago is any better than CLS and NYU (or even Boalt, or whatever it's called now). But I don't see any evidence of Chicago being "generally seen . . . on the decline."

53 -- subtle CLS troll.

55 -- not-even-slightly subtle Berkeley School of Locks and Boalts School of Law Troll

I think in terms of recruiting, Boston College grads do well in and around Boston. BUSL grads do well in Boston, but also in NYC and California. It has less to do with volume of grads (since the numbers have been the same for nearly a decade), than it has to do with diversity. Most BC grads I knew were from New England and intended to stay in or around Boston. BUSL grads had a much larger New York and California contingency.

what a crock. just because there are more grads of a certain school in biglaw doesn't mean those grads have an easier time getting those jobs. ever heard of self-selection? did Leiter ever consider the fact that all those Yalies go into teaching, public interest and govt jobs, many of which are more difficult to get? genius, i tell ya.

46: Credited.

Leiter is so full of crap. Boston is a strange market, with a number of firms that are 'elite' yet don't qualify as Vault firms. E.g., Foley Hoag, etc. Furthermore, horror of horrors, some Yale grads actually stay in CT and work in the better CT firms.

Hey Elie, did you enjoy your TTTurkey yesterday?

oh no, michigan is only number 10. i guess i'll have to develop super interviewing skills to get that 1L sa position. any advice?

-nervous T-10 1L

Ditto 60. I doubt that Finn Dixon is in Vault, but it's full of smart Yalies (many of whom are douche bags, but that's besides the point).

Uh, Leiter's list is the "top 15" - not "top 10" - why are you leaving these other schools out?? Well, here they are:

12 Georgetown University

13 University of Virginia

14 University of California, Berkeley

15 Fordham University

I'm going to be first to say GULC > UVA.

15
Fordham University
0.48
183

44

What are you talking about. NYU is way better than CLS. Just because the NLJ study looking at current graduating class placement and this study focusing on the alumni network you will have for mentoership at a firm both happened to list CLS as #1 doesn't mean anything.

It's just an old boys club with CLS dominating the partnership at these firms hiring CLS kids, who grow up to be partners starting the cycle anew.

It does not mean the NYU students are any less qualified.

I would take a Public Interest job I deserve over a "elite" firm job I got because the partners want to keep their school elite with inflated career placement stats.

What a bunch of prestige-whoring losers. Go back to civ pro, kids. These "rankings" are nothing more than a poorly-controlled measure of some schools feed to some large, mostly northeastern law firms. BFD.

anyone who seriously cares about the ranking of any law school usually sucks as a lawyer.

49, this is 44.

I posted my methodology on autoadmit a couple of years ago, before it turned into what it is, back when I was trying to pick schools.

Basically, I looked at the number of first years from NYU and Columbia at 10 firms that I deemed to be fanciest (the typical Vault suspects, plus the fancy lit firms). I then used the ABA data to find number of clerks, number of people with government jobs, and number of people in public interest- the schools report all this data.

I then calculated the percentage of the class that got the good offers, which is pretty trivial math. I made a few assumptions, but nothing outrageous- i was trying to pick b/w the two schools at the time, so I had no vested interest.

No matter how I crunched the numbers, i got a 8-10% edge for CLS over NYU (which was in turn 7% over Penn, my other option).

The PI interest at NYU matters; it narrows the gap b/.w schools considerably in terms of placement.

We all know that going to a T10, GULC, or a regional school and graduating top of the class will get you biglaw on the east coast. Yawn.

Looking mainly at NY firms creates a clear bias in favor of NY law schools and schools like Penn and Harvard where most grads are trying to work on NYC.

All asking why it's top 24,

As he states, it is based on the top 15 firms that have search engines that let you search by law school. Thus, LW is not include not because it isn't elite, but because of their IT selection.

Someone should go to his article back and re-rank the schools cutting the data off at the first firm he skipped (think it would be V7 or 8, which we all know are really the first (WLRK) and second (rest) tier firms.

This study cannot be used to draw the conclusions Leiter draws. Specifically, he wants to say that because there are a higher number of students from one school at V24 firms, then it must be easier to get into those firms if you are from that school.

That ignores the possibility that those firms might have preferred to hire from another school, but an insufficient number of candidates were available from that prefered school.

Anecdotal evidence strongly indicates that this is the case. Students from Yale disproportionately go into government and academic jobs, and thus are less available to staff the ranks of v24 firms.

Moreover, from personal experience, none of my YLS classmates who interviewed with more than 3 or 4 v25 firms were rejected by all of them. Any YLS grad could get a job with a v25 firm if he wanted it. Many don't, though.

So apparently Brooklyn and Cardozo arent complete toilets. Someone needs to tell the losers at Jdunderground that its not their schools fault they are losers.

Other firms in the top 24 are ridiculously easy to search as well. Stupid

20 and 27,

maybe Leiter didn't control for government jobs because he was trying to answer the question:

"Where do the most elite law firms in the United States go to hire new lawyers?"

try reading the post before commenting

So apparently Brooklyn and Cardozo arent complete toilets. Someone needs to tell the losers at Jdunderground that its not their schools fault they are losers.

Why does anyone take Leiter seriously? When this is his greatest contribution to man, he deserves to have everyone who he's ever expected to call him Doctor or Professor to line up and shit in his mouth.

Thanks 53, you're a lifesaver.

*Unfiles transfer application to CLS*

-48

As we speak, law firms are re-tooling their webpages to make it easier to search. so they can get on Leiter's list of "elite" firms.

Try running this methodology for all T50 schools. I selected WCL since it gets lots of crap on this blog.

Guess what?? 151 Grads at these 15 "elite" firms. Average class size of 300 gives it a rating of .50.

.50 Puts it right at #15 on Leiter's chart -- just above Fordham. If WCL or Fordham at 15 doesn't suggest these rankings are screwy, I don't know what would.

Um, why would you assume that top law students all want to go to top firms. Call me crazy, but perhaps there are more Columbia grads a big law firms because they want to go there, whereas Yale grads would rather be in academia than a firm. Any ranking that does not have Yale listed as the best feeder for pretty much any legal job is ignoring at reality. (FYI, I went to Duke, not Yale.)

Right after this study came out, I accepted my offer at Jones Day over Munger, Latham, and Gibson. Bad move? Did Leiter push me in the wrong direction?

hey queers what does TTT mean???????????????/

68 is Brian Leiter. It is fairly pathetic that he has to come on to this blog to defend his methadology. However, he still is incorrect regarding class size and he has no way of what percentage of students were offered jobs at these "select" firms and turned it down to work at say Quinn Emanuel.

He also fails to take into consideration that certain law schools such as NYU are far better than they were twenty years ago, while others such as U of Chicago which used to be a top three school is now arguably a top five school.

84 = subtle John Quinn troll (subtle because (s)he uses capital letters)

I'm disappointed that he didn't include botiques in the ranking. There are people at firms like Kellogg Huber, Susman Godfrey, and Irell who picked those firms, without hesitation, over places like Cravath and Jones Day (and even WLRK).

And they're usually Yalies . . . . :)

I went to Yale, and chose to go work for a plaintiff's firm. I was labeled an associate, but shared in firm profits. I made 7 figures my first few years out and was making 8 a few years after. I am 35, semi-retired, and golf every day.

Chicago as a top five school is still pretty darn good.

I mean you have HLS, YLS, and SLS as the undisputed top three. So to put Chicago in the top 5 is very impressive (and I would say probably deserved).

As for everyone hating on this b/c it under ranks YLS, do you think anybody considering YLS for school cares? No. These kind of rankings don't matter for Harvard, Yale, or Stanford. They have their own special dynamics that can't be easily adjusted for.

However, this sort of data does tell us some interesting things about the relative placement power of the rest of the top 20 (who aren't sending any significant percentage of their best and brightest to feeder clerkships and DoJ Honors like HYS are).

We all know that going to a T10, GULC, or a regional school and graduating top of the class will get you biglaw on the east coast. Yawn.

84, no he's not, he's the guy who did a similar study on autoadmit a couple of years ago. Read the comments more carefully next time.

Man this is a super-silly list. For example, the Vault list is biased in favor of NYC - 99% of the people who go to Columbia or NYU likes New York City, so they will look for a job in NY, and so these schools are so high in this list.
There is a might higher chance that people who choose to study at Yale, Stanford or Michigan don't like a big city like NYC and they don't look for firms in these places. Instead they will look at firms in DC, in LA\SF, or in MUCH smaller markets - look at prestige firms in these places - most of them are not ranked in Vault top 24.
A law school is good if its graduates can get to the places THEY want and not to the places on the top of Vault.

There are many more problems with such a methodology. Do you count partners who went to law school 20 years ago? How do you count for these who chose public work? If you are looking at mid-level associate - what if some of them in the meanwhile got a good job in house or in an investment bank? and more...
This is one silly ranking.

Look, I went to BC Law, and we are well aware we aren't Yale, but a whole thread devoted to rubbing it in? Let us have our deluded little moment.

Mean. MEAN! =)

91 -- could you please up the subtlety, and decrease the trolling, in your Michigan subtle trolling?

87, I'm considering taking the chance with the plaintiffs firm as well. I have many other options in biglaw as well. The only holdup I have with choosing the plaintiffs firm is they aren't being too transparent about compensation. I know they all have a lot of money by seeing the offices, cars, private jets and what not. Should I just ask them outright about money; what made you choose your firm?

All this shit is useless to me. What are the best patent litigation firms in NYC please?

BU, BC, ND, GW, USC, UCLA, Vandy, UT should all be considered the same regardless of USNews rankings. These are probably the best schools outside of the T14, which I know doesn't say much on this board. In my experience, firms go just as deep into the class at all of these schools. Pretty much same cut-off rate. Local firms will go deeper into the schools in their market (LA firms deeper into UCLA/USC than BC/BU; Boston firms deeper into class at BC/BU than UCLA/USC).

95-
Kirkland Ellis
Ropes and Gray
Fitzpatrick Cella
Kaye Scholer
Fish Richardson
Jones Day
Kenyon

and others. I'm sure there are some I'm missing that are decent. Look at chambers and partners to get a better idea.

97 -

tyty.

95, if patents are your interest you might do better by leaving NYC. F&R does have an office there though. Also Weil, Gotshal, and Manges is good. You could also look at Kirkland and Ellis, but not really their NYC office.
If you're gutsy you might want to take a look at plaintiff's type patent work. There is big money in the infringement/licensing world.
The largest concentration of patent lit firms is going to be in Cali though. If you really want to stay in NYC look at big hitter general litigation firms like Boies and others.

87 - congratulations, you're living the dream.

99 -

Thanks, but I think you might not have your facts straight. NYC has one of the largest concentrations of patent litigation work outside of Cali. Also, Kirkland's NYC office seems to be the bread & butter of their patent practice.

Not sure what you mean by "look at plaintiff's type patent work." I'm a 2L, I'm not going to hang a shingle. As long as I go Biglaw, the money is the same.

Your suggestion of looking at Boies is strange. They are completely off the radar for patent lit work. They may do some, but they're not exactly known for it, and it doesn't look like they have many people with engineering backgrounds (if any).

Thanks, though, I appreciate the thought.

Without Latham, O'melveny or Gibson, there's an extreme Northeast bias to these rankings. Schools in the Northeast, especially ones in NYC, are undoubtedly going to have an advantage. That's why you see Fordham in the list. If you include Latham, OMM and Gibson, it's likely that schools like Stanford, Berkeley and UCLA would rank a few spots higher.

99 -

Clarification. Boies has some patent litigators, but almost exclusively out of D.C. No thanks.

102: why would you want to live anywhere but the Northeast, silly? Everyone knows that all of the good lawyers are in New York City.

17 California offices is not a "Northeast bias." There is a coast bias, which is waht Leiters says. Too bad, as someone pointed out before, that people don't actually read before mouthing off and revealing that they're idiots. Here's a few simple rules:

1. Because your school isn't ranked as highly as you would like doesn't mean the methodology is problematic.

2. Because a school that US News taught you not to like is ranked more highly doesn't mean the methodology is problematic.

There is a pretty clear explanation of the limitations of the methodology for those who can read.

How is this NYC biased?

The "elite" firms are all in NYC and he is answering the question of where do the elite firms get their associates from. Mich students who go to Detroit over NYC are irrelevant to answering that. The main mistake of this method is to include non-HQ branches of the elite firms and too loose of a definition of elite firms (he should cut it off at V10 (I'd say V5, but SkaTTTen messes it up because they take a lot of middle of the class students)).

Uh yeah...it fails to take school size into account. Also, Elie, you're still a snob for mocking other law schools.

Is Lat done? This site sucks without him.

public interest is for losers

87 - you're my hero.

Cardozo is younger and smaller, and Brooklyn is bigger and older. While Brooklyn's score for associates at elite firrms per class size bests Cardozo's by 0.05, which school is currently placing grads more successfully? Or should I say (for all you TTT haters) which is placing grads least poorly?

What a surprise. Leiter's "methodology" means that Chicago is #2. Troll alert.

80 -- Leiter's 'study' didn't look at all grads at these firms, it only looked at grads who are associates. If you were looking at all grads, you probably overstated the per capita result that would have occurred using the same methodology Leiter used.

105: You're a moron - only out-done by Lieter himself.

Counting the number of offices in CA does nothing to dispute there is a Northeast bias to this poll and that the absence of Latham/ OMM/ Gibson is a huge detriment to CA schools.

To get to 17, Lieter has to count NY firm outposts such as S&C's 12 person office in Palo Alto. Firms such as Simpson, DPW or Skadden have CA offices as well, but they're a mere fraction of the size of their NYC offices. Meanwhile, if you're wanting to go to a prestigious firm in CA, the Big 3 in LA are the first place you'd check out.

A much more reflective statistic would be the total number of people employed in CA at those 17 firms compared to the ones in NYC. You'll find the Big 3 represent a HUGE percentage of top tier talent in CA, and you'll see the clear Northeast bias that exists.

Again, moron.

What a joke.
Those rankings are total crap and everyone knows it.

They say nothing about the choices that are provided to the law student by the eliteness of the school.

I bet you'd see a lot more associates from lower ranked schools and regional schools at elite firms than you would see partners. Firms may hire from Brooklyn and Cardozo when they need warm bodies to review documents, but they don't necessarily promote them.

I chose Chicago over Yale because of Brian Leiter. Dude is a brilliant researcher and writer.

I went to a top 10 school. Most people didn't choose their employer by Vault ranking. For example, there are many prestigious firms in San Francisco not listed in Vault. These includes Keker's firm, Rosen Bien, Farella, and Shartsis. These jobs are much more difficult to land than a summer associateship at Morgan Lewis.

MysTTTal

If he was still at Texas he would have picked firms that put them in the top 10.

I have honestly never seen anyone who so desperately needed to validate their own self worth that they resorted to such ritualistically incessant ego stroking. Pathetic. Anyone else pick up on the fact that he has since stopped trying to claim there is no T14 and now just tries to lump Chicago in with HYS by drawing comparisons amongst them. Un-be-lievable.

Look at any top firm in Texas, and it will be full of UT grads. Does that mean it is easier to get a job with V&E of Baker Botts coming out of UT than it is coming out of Yale? Nonsense.

The same applies to the V24. Each of these firms is going to hire a lot of their lawyers from the top local law schools. That does not mean its easier to get into Cravath from NYU or Kirkland from Chicago. It just means that people from NYU and Chicago are more likely to confine their job searches to their local market, and therefore constitute a bigger pool of applicants than Yalies, who have broader geographic interests.

And of course, Yalies also have broader job interests due to the COAP program (which repays student loans for those who opt to take public interest or government jobs).

Seriously, Yale should be number one on every list.

The world would be so much better off if Elie would just eaTTT Brian Leiter and be done with it...

120 -- Yeah, Yale is definitely the only school with a loan repayment program for people who take public interest or government jobs. Truly, it is one of a kind.

119: do you let any facts get in the way of your asinine insults? Leiter did a national placement study five or six years ago when he was at UT, and it wasn't in the top ten. Chicago was ranked #1 in his citation studies for a long time, but more recently he ranked it as low as #4 in citations. (There are lots of old studies on his ranking site, you can see Chicago used to do much better.) Chicago is obviously competitive with Harvard and Stanford in clerkships, academia, elite firm jobs (check Ciolli study on the last one).

The ratio of assholes to brains in this comment thread is pretty bad.

124 = MindTheGap

I think the poster that mentioned supply makes a good point. The reason there are more GW grads than HYS grads at a firm like Jones Day is because the HYS grads are able to go to better firms like Cravath or get clerkships or prestigious govt or boutique positions.

125: titcr

People who post comments on ATL = TTT, excluding myself.