(03-14-2012 05:02 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Simple observation, 16 out of the 20 nBE institutions have a law school.

USF and UCF will never have a law school within our lifetimes for a variety of reasons. One being primarily economic as there is no funding to add one never mind two schools of law....but then again the state house and senate just voted to add a 12th state university despite gutting the state's higher ed budget by $400-million next year. Only in the State of Florida does that make any sense....so who knows maybe by this time next year legislature sympathetic to one of our causes will try and steal FAMU's school much as a state legislature stole/extorted USF's Polytechnic idea into a new state funded university.

Ahhh...gotta love politics.

But both USF and UCF have med schools, which are kinda more important on the generating research dollars level. BE schools with medicine: Georgetown, USF, UCF, Temple, Cincy, Louisville. Rutgers is supposed to have one soon via merger. Does UConn's count? It's in a different part of the state.

By the way, that USF Polytechnic thing was a joke, right? I didn't follow it that closely but the impression I got from Twitter was one of your local yokel politicians was threatening to cut off USF's funding if he didn't get his own university to play around with.

(03-14-2012 05:44 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(03-14-2012 05:02 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  Simple observation, 16 out of the 20 nBE institutions have a law school.

USF and UCF will never have a law school within our lifetimes for a variety of reasons. One being primarily economic as there is no funding to add one never mind two schools of law....but then again the state house and senate just voted to add a 12th state university despite gutting the state's higher ed budget by $400-million next year. Only in the State of Florida does that make any sense....so who knows maybe by this time next year legislature sympathetic to one of our causes will try and steal FAMU's school much as a state legislature stole/extorted USF's Polytechnic idea into a new state funded university.

Ahhh...gotta love politics.

But both USF and UCF have med schools, which are kinda more important on the generating research dollars level. BE schools with medicine: Georgetown, USF, UCF, Temple, Cincy, Louisville. Rutgers is supposed to have one soon via merger. Does UConn's count? It's in a different part of the state.

By the way, that USF Polytechnic thing was a joke, right? I didn't follow it that closely but the impression I got from Twitter was one of your local yokel politicians was threatening to cut off USF's funding if he didn't get his own university to play around with.

Rutgers had a med school until it was severed and merged into UMDNJ in the 1970s. Now we might get it back as part of a reorganization. Of course we'd loose the Camden campus with its law school to Rowan.

(03-14-2012 04:11 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  WHERE your degree is from is a big deal to some companies (and individual recruiters), but not so much to others. I spent the first 12 years of my career working for an international construction company alongside associates from some of the most renowned engineering schools in the nation (Auburn, Georgia Tech, Lehigh, Ohio State, Stanford, Texas A&M, etc.) and my GPA was less than spectacular. Many were superior to me, but I think it was more a matter of individual ability than where they studied. I have known a few Memphis grads who I would stack up against anybody.

i worked at pratt & whitney aircraft engine group in hartford as a test engineering technician and there were mit, tufts grads there and i wasn't impressed, some new grads couldn't even read blue prints.

(03-14-2012 12:08 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(03-14-2012 08:43 AM)UH Law 97 Wrote:  The truth is, bar passage rates don't necessarily mean that much. To some extent, they're a reflection of the degree to which a school teaches to the test.

You know, I really don't understand why this argument is permitted in the law school world. The goal of going to law school is to become a lawyer. To become a lawyer, one must be licensed. To be licensed, one must pass the bar exam (unless one attends a law school in WI and joins the WI bar).

Law school seems to be the only professional school where low pass rates on the certification exam are both acceptable and schools with high scores are denounced as teaching to the test. If any medical school came in with pass rates on their licensing exams like many law schools do, the deans and faculty would all be fired and the entire school would be turned upside down. I can't for the life of me understand why the ABA continues to accredit any law school with a pass rate under 80% at minimum.

Citrus,

I need to correct you on one point. The purpose of going to law school, contrary to popular belief, is NOT NECESSARILY to "become a lawyer." Granted, most people that go to law school intend to become lawyers, but others don't, and some who intend to give up practice and/or never practice.

Take me, for example. I went to law school at UH, got a JD in 1997, and passed the Texas bar on the first try. However, after only six months of practice, I went into the Army in a NON-legal capacity, and haven't looked back in 14 years. Maybe in six more years when I retire from the Army, I'll give the practice of law another try.

The other thing I need to mention is that law school isn't really about preparing you for practice, or the "bar exam" as such. Rather, it's about teaching you to think about the issues in the law the way that a good lawyer might. That's the difference between "legal education" and "law practice."

Now then, it's fair to say that if a school's bar passage rate in-jurisdiction is below 80%, then something IS wrong. That should definitely be grounds for questioning a school's accreditation.

However, subject to those minimum standards, there's a lot more to law school than the bar exam.

Consider this. Memphis' bar passage rates might very well be higher than Vandy's.

BUT...............by the same token, I don't know of any large law firm in either Memphis or Nashville that would rather hire a Memphis law grad over a Vandy law grad of comparable class rank.

I think that that speaks VOLUMES about the differences in perceived quality/reputation between those two law schools, and why Memphis' bar passage rate is hardly a decisive argument when debating which of those two law schools is "better."

(03-14-2012 03:44 PM)Comet Wrote:  Had a buddy who got wait-listed at SMU law but went to Houston's instead. I had no idea they were ranked so similarly. I know very little about law rankings, so this is an interesting list.

Here's why I would choose UH over SMU:

For a comparable national ranking, UH provides:

1) LOWER tuition, especially for a TX resident

2) BETTER specialty programs. USNEWS ranks UH #4 in Intellectual Property, and #8 in Health Law. UH is also generally considered to be stronger in Environmental and International Law.

In other words.............you get more bang for your buck!

I have degrees from FOUR different schools:

Case Western Reserve University (Bachelor's)
University of Houston (JD-Law)
Central Michigan University (Master's)
Command and General Staff College (Master's)

Of those, the University of Houston Law Center was BY FAR the most difficult, and the one that I'm most proud of.

EAT 'EM UP COOGS!!!

(03-14-2012 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Memphis needs a medical school...

We may have one in the future. It so happens that the University of Tennessee Medical School is located in Memphis, over half the students there are UofM pre-med grads and the university is an integral part of a research consortium with UT, St Jude, and the extensive local biomedical industry. Furthermore, there have been past rumblings in the state legislature that UT's statewide monopoly should be broken up, and the efficiency advantages of more local control make for a strong argument. First on UofM's agenda, however is the current push for our own board of regents (for which the governor is in favor). The added prestige and recognition of now belonging to a "power conference" cannot hurt in such political efforts.

(03-15-2012 01:16 AM)UH Law 97 Wrote:  Citrus,

I need to correct you on one point. The purpose of going to law school, contrary to popular belief, is NOT NECESSARILY to "become a lawyer." Granted, most people that go to law school intend to become lawyers, but others don't, and some who intend to give up practice and/or never practice.

Take me, for example. I went to law school at UH, got a JD in 1997, and passed the Texas bar on the first try. However, after only six months of practice, I went into the Army in a NON-legal capacity, and haven't looked back in 14 years. Maybe in six more years when I retire from the Army, I'll give the practice of law another try.

The other thing I need to mention is that law school isn't really about preparing you for practice, or the "bar exam" as such. Rather, it's about teaching you to think about the issues in the law the way that a good lawyer might. That's the difference between "legal education" and "law practice."

Now then, it's fair to say that if a school's bar passage rate in-jurisdiction is below 80%, then something IS wrong. That should definitely be grounds for questioning a school's accreditation.

However, subject to those minimum standards, there's a lot more to law school than the bar exam.

Consider this. Memphis' bar passage rates might very well be higher than Vandy's.

BUT...............by the same token, I don't know of any large law firm in either Memphis or Nashville that would rather hire a Memphis law grad over a Vandy law grad of comparable class rank.

I think that that speaks VOLUMES about the differences in perceived quality/reputation between those two law schools, and why Memphis' bar passage rate is hardly a decisive argument when debating which of those two law schools is "better."

Great post. I've been practicing corporate law for the past 9 years and I might use maybe *at most* 5% of what I had to study for on the bar exam with any regularity. In fact, even the substantive matter of the classes that I took in law school rarely ever apply. (Granted, this might be different if you're a litigator, where the rules of civil procedure are critical.) What a good law school will do is to teach you how to *think* like a lawyer because that's what you're going to use throughout the course of your practice. Anyone can memorize statutes and cases. That's not what you're paying for when you go to a lawyer. What you're paying for is how that lawyer analyzes such statutes and cases in the course of approaching a problem or issue.

(03-15-2012 01:20 AM)UH Law 97 Wrote:  

(03-14-2012 03:44 PM)Comet Wrote:  Had a buddy who got wait-listed at SMU law but went to Houston's instead. I had no idea they were ranked so similarly. I know very little about law rankings, so this is an interesting list.

Here's why I would choose UH over SMU:

For a comparable national ranking, UH provides:

1) LOWER tuition, especially for a TX resident

2) BETTER specialty programs. USNEWS ranks UH #4 in Intellectual Property, and #8 in Health Law. UH is also generally considered to be stronger in Environmental and International Law.

In other words.............you get more bang for your buck!

I have degrees from FOUR different schools:

Case Western Reserve University (Bachelor's)
University of Houston (JD-Law)
Central Michigan University (Master's)
Command and General Staff College (Master's)

Of those, the University of Houston Law Center was BY FAR the most difficult, and the one that I'm most proud of.

EAT 'EM UP COOGS!!!

Thanks for the education. If I hadn't gotten accepted into a PhD program, Law school would have been my next option.

(03-15-2012 08:10 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-14-2012 05:03 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Memphis needs a medical school...

We may have one in the future. It so happens that the University of Tennessee Medical School is located in Memphis, over half the students there are UofM pre-med grads and the university is an integral part of a research consortium with UT, St Jude, and the extensive local biomedical industry. Furthermore, there have been past rumblings in the state legislature that UT's statewide monopoly should be broken up, and the efficiency advantages of more local control make for a strong argument. First on UofM's agenda, however is the current push for our own board of regents (for which the governor is in favor). The added prestige and recognition of now belonging to a "power conference" cannot hurt in such political efforts.

Sorry, but UT will give up their med school when we pry it from their cold, dead hands. We'd have a better chance of starting our own med school than getting them to hand theirs over to us.

(03-15-2012 11:16 AM)TOGC Wrote:  Sorry, but UT will give up their med school when we pry it from their cold, dead hands. We'd have a better chance of starting our own med school than getting them to hand theirs over to us.

Of course they will fight it, just as they fought every advancement of UofM for the last 115 years, beginning with the first efforts to found our school. History proves that they do not always win.

(03-15-2012 11:59 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-15-2012 11:16 AM)TOGC Wrote:  Sorry, but UT will give up their med school when we pry it from their cold, dead hands. We'd have a better chance of starting our own med school than getting them to hand theirs over to us.

Of course they will fight it, just as they fought every advancement of UofM for the last 115 years, beginning with the first efforts to found our school. History proves that they do not always win.

Maybe so, but it is their school. It will be tough to rip it from their hands.

In the state of Texas, there are 4 good law schools.

UT is the clear #1.

Houston, SMU and Baylor are all highly regarded. Essentially tied for second. Each has its strong points.

There's about 5 other law schools in the state. They are generally filled with the rejects from UT, Houston, Baylor and SMU.

(03-15-2012 10:15 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  In the state of Texas, there are 4 good law schools.

UT is the clear #1.

Houston, SMU and Baylor are all highly regarded. Essentially tied for second. Each has its strong points.

There's about 5 other law schools in the state. They are generally filled with the rejects from UT, Houston, Baylor and SMU.

A few years back, I read an interesting article where the Dean of the University of Texas law school was interviewed. He went on to say there are essentially two types of law schools: 1.) one that focuses on prep'ing for the bar, and 2.) one that produces scholars. He applauded Houston for falling more into category #2.

(03-16-2012 10:50 AM)tom-cat Wrote:  A few years back, I read an interesting article where the Dean of the University of Texas law school was interviewed. He went on to say there are essentially two types of law schools: 1.) one that focuses on prep'ing for the bar, and 2.) one that produces scholars. He applauded Houston for falling more into category #2.

UofM focuses on category #3: producing good attorneys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_C._Hu...ool_of_Law

".....consistently named an “excellent value” in legal education by National Jurist Magazine. Additionally, for the last two years, it has a top law school job placement rate in the state with over 98% of graduates being employed within nine months of graduation. The bar passage rate for the July 2006 exam was 92.4%, the highest of any law school in Tennessee and well over the state average of 79.8%.[9] The school also has the highest bar passage rate in the State of Tennessee over the last 15 years.[10] In the 2007 Back to School issue of preLaw, the University of Memphis Law School was ranked fifth in the list of "Best Value Law Schools." "

(03-14-2012 06:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  If I remember correctly Marquette just completed a new 200,000 sq.ft. Eckstein Hall law school.

Yeah, Eckstein Hall just opened. Its unbelievable. I didn't go to law school there, but it sure puts my alma mater's building to shame. The structure is truly impressive. Open concept. Top shelf technology. There is even a workout facility in the law school, so the students can exercise between classes. It will be interesting to see what effect a building has on rankings.

(03-15-2012 10:15 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  In the state of Texas, there are 4 good law schools.

UT is the clear #1.

Houston, SMU and Baylor are all highly regarded. Essentially tied for second. Each has its strong points.

There's about 5 other law schools in the state. They are generally filled with the rejects from UT, Houston, Baylor and SMU.

Yep. Among the 2nd group, go to UH if you want to work in Houston, go to SMU if you want to work in Dallas, and go to Baylor if you want to be a litigator and you don't care as much about location.

When I was accepted at Pitt we were ranked in the low-mid 50s. Now we're more around 70. It's a little disheartening to see the rankings slip like that but those who have gone through the law school experience also know that the school's prestige does become quite regional after the top 14. I would even say 25 but I agree with Frank that the top 14 are truly national.

I also can't speak highly enough of the faculty that I had at Pitt. Sometimes I wonder why based on faculty alone Pitt isn't ranked higher than they presently are. I also don't closely follow the methodology that they use to make the rankings because I just don't care that much. This is just a personal observation.

As for the bar exam passage rates, I don't think they're an indicator of anything. You don't learn to pass the bar in law school (at least in my case). You learn the theory of law and how to start thinking about things in a different way. I think Frank and UH's analysis on this was also spot on. I didn't even have to take a course in all the subjects that were tested on my bar exam.

Not only do schools not teach to the bar exam, they also can't hold your hand while you do it. A school's poor bar exam passage rate could be significantly lowered just by people who went there that take the bar without studying or who just take it for fun (though there's nothing fun about it) and don't intend to practice anyway. In addition, the questions on the bar exam are totally different from what you see on law school exams. Multiple choice, a seriously unpopular exam format at Pitt made up an entire day (200 questions worth) of material on the bar. The essays I wrote were also completely different than anything in law school as they were so much shallower, etc.

Anyway, I just don't think that the bar exam passage rate really means much. There are too many variables that go into it.