3 ms·

Except that admission to Harvard Law doesn't guarantee a $160k+bonus job these days! And my understanding is that being in the top of your class (or top 50%) i

Except that admission to Harvard Law doesn't guarantee a $160k+bonus job these days! And my understanding is that being in the top of your class (or top 50%) in law school is more difficult than a 4.0 in basket weaving. (I agree with your main point - law school admissions selects for completely "gameable" things).

VladRussian 15y ago
>I agree with your main point - law school admissions selects for completely "gameable" things that in reality is equivalent to "for the ability to game the rules/system" - which seems pretty valid criteria for a law school selection
- 2arrs2ells 15y ago
  Agree with you 100% (and just wrote a top level comment to the same effect before I read this). That said, I think law schools would be much better off if they had an interview process & weighted it heavily. It would be easy to get a 4.0/180 and not be "client-friendly" in the least.
rayiner 15y ago
For class of 2011, which was the one most hard-hit by the recession, Harvard Law was still at about 80% of people who wanted it getting those jobs. I'd imagine it's back over 90% now. Even Columbia is over 75% now. As for getting in the top half... it's another highly game-able thing. Your grades are based entirely on exams that are basically like the LSAT---they test you on how quickly you can apply a relatively simple set of rules to ambiguous facts. The only classes that test your writing (which is what you actually do as a lawyer!) in the all-important first year are typically weighted very little, or even ungraded.
- 2arrs2ells 15y ago
  But what % of those 80% are getting top-tier biglaw jobs (or clerkships)? I have no idea - but my dad does law in the public sector (read: not lucrative) and anecdotally he says he's able to hire lots of top 10 law school grads who never would have applied for that kind of job five years ago.
  - rayiner 15y ago
    > But what % of those 80% are getting top-tier biglaw jobs (or clerkships)? At Harvard, Yale, and Stanford? Yes. The other good schools (top 10/15-ish) are in the 60% range. Outside the top 20, it's probably in the 10% range and below.

VladRussian 15y ago

>I agree with your main point - law school admissions selects for completely "gameable" things that in reality is equivalent to "for the ability to game the rules/system" - which seems pretty valid criteria for a law school selection

2arrs2ells 15y ago
Agree with you 100% (and just wrote a top level comment to the same effect before I read this). That said, I think law schools would be much better off if they had an interview process & weighted it heavily. It would be easy to get a 4.0/180 and not be "client-friendly" in the least.

rayiner 15y ago

For class of 2011, which was the one most hard-hit by the recession, Harvard Law was still at about 80% of people who wanted it getting those jobs. I'd imagine it's back over 90% now. Even Columbia is over 75% now. As for getting in the top half... it's another highly game-able thing. Your grades are based entirely on exams that are basically like the LSAT---they test you on how quickly you can apply a relatively simple set of rules to ambiguous facts. The only classes that test your writing (which is what you actually do as a lawyer!) in the all-important first year are typically weighted very little, or even ungraded.

2arrs2ells 15y ago
But what % of those 80% are getting top-tier biglaw jobs (or clerkships)? I have no idea - but my dad does law in the public sector (read: not lucrative) and anecdotally he says he's able to hire lots of top 10 law school grads who never would have applied for that kind of job five years ago.
- rayiner 15y ago
  > But what % of those 80% are getting top-tier biglaw jobs (or clerkships)? At Harvard, Yale, and Stanford? Yes. The other good schools (top 10/15-ish) are in the 60% range. Outside the top 20, it's probably in the 10% range and below.