pageok
pageok
pageok
Don't Blame U.S. News:

Law school deans (and many professors) like to complain about the influence of U.S. News law school rankings. My colleague Andrew Morriss and William Henderson think some law schools doth protest too much. In an interesting article in The American Lawyer they suggest that law schools themselves should share much of the blame for the rank influence of rankings.

If you listened only to law faculties and deans, you'd think that U.S. News & World Report's ranking of law schools was a terrible development. Virtually every dean of every law school approved by the American Bar Association annually signs a letter (173 of 194 deans in 2007), sent to everyone who takes the Law School Admission Test, enumerating the flaws in the magazine's "mathematical formulae" and concluding that any ranking system that purports to measure all law schools by a single yardstick is "unworthy of being an important influence on the choice you are about to make."

We're not convinced. U.S. News is influential among prospective students at least in part because the magazine does what the law schools don't: give law students easy-to-compare information that sheds light on their long-term employment prospects. Law schools could easily supply that information themselves, but they choose not to. In fact, as the collective head shaking about the rankings has increased, the growth of the large law firm sector—which pay salaries that justify the rapidly escalating cost of legal education—has made the rankings more important.

The article is based on a longer work forthcoming in the Indiana Law Journal available on SSRN here.

ATRGeek:
Their argument sounds right to me: it is easy to poke holes in the USNWR methodology, but that is a somewhat meaningless exercise unless the law schools come up with a superior alternative. And I also agree that prospective students are primarily concerned about employment prospects (as they should be--this is professional school after all). Hence, making the value added to the employment prospects of the schools' graduates more transparent should be the goal of any alternative to the USNWR rankings.

Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks the status quo might be just fine with law schools precisely because it leaves the value added to the students' employment prospects relatively opaque. Indeed, I think people might be a little shocked to find out how little value is added by many (maybe most) law schools.
6.4.2007 7:52am
Russ:
ATRGeek is absolutely right. These schools don't want to reveal any more than what US News requires them to because their students employment prospects are much bleaker than officially advertised.
6.4.2007 8:46am
Zathras (mail):
"U.S. News is influential among prospective students at least in part because the magazine does what the law schools don’t: give law students easy-to-compare information that sheds light on their long-term employment prospects."

Unfortunately, this information comes from the law schools themselves, who routinely inflate the data given on employment. Also, I am not aware on any data provided on "long-term employment prospects." It would certainly be interesting to have that information, but no one gives it.
6.4.2007 8:52am
Bretzky (mail):
As someone who is looking to start law school next year, I can say that the U.S. News rankings were a good starting point for me, but have not really affected my choice of schools to apply to. Part of this probably springs from the fact that I am going to do a joint law/masters program, which necessarily limits my range of choices to those schools that offer such an option.

There are several factors that play into one's decision on which schools to apply to and to attend: potential for acceptance, location, job prospects, etc. The problem with the job prospects data is that it is very generic. While one school might produce an average lawyer with better long-term employment prospects than another school, the latter school may produce avergage environmental law lawyers with better long-term employment prospects than the former school. If one wants to practice environmental law, then which school is the better choice? Most likely it is the latter one.

The fact remains that, unless the Harvards, Yales, and Stanfords of the law school world do not make an effort to undermine the U.S. News rankings, then they will continue to be used. If they did provide enough data for an interested student to make a decision, then it would potentially end the raison d'être for the rankings in the first place: the student's desire to gather information in the effort to make an informed decision. If the "top" schools led, the other schools would likely have to follow.
6.4.2007 9:25am
anonVCfan:
The fact remains that, unless the Harvards, Yales, and Stanfords of the law school world do not make an effort to undermine the U.S. News rankings, then they will continue to be used

Why would schools consistently ranked nos. 1, 2, and 3 by U.S. News want to make an effort to undermine the rankings?
6.4.2007 10:25am
ATRGeek:
Bretzky,

I am a little skeptical about field-specific rankings, in part because in my experience many (maybe most) law students change their preferences over fields during law school. I also tend to think there is a self-selection problem here: if School X has a reputation for being a good place to go for students interested in Field Y, then their best students may be disproportionately interested in Field Y, and may indeed get better-than-average employment results accordingly. But in that case the school has not necessarily added more value to students interested in that field, but rather has just done a better job of recruiting good prospects in that field.

So, for such reasons I tend to think that "generic" value-added rankings may remain the most relevant to the vast majority of students. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to information on this subject being available to prospective students--again, the cynic in me just thinks it would not be in the interests of many schools to provide such information in a transparent, rigorous, value-added basis.
6.4.2007 11:14am
Justin (mail):
This seems to be the "best answer" myth. The problem with the USNews isn't that its terrible in terms of ranking - it's more useful for determining employer information than Leiter's rankings. The problem is that any "winner" ranking system (that is, the gold standard ranking system according to public perception) will have a self-reinforcing principle. People want to go to the top law schools because they're the top law schools, which in term can be more selective, law firms want to look prestigous so they hire from the top law schools, and those law schools then do well in future rankings. It "locks in" the system, which can damage, to some degree, innovation and healthty competition.

The best system would be no system, in that light. From a positive standpoint, that's not realistic - when there's a demand, however foolish, there will be someone to supply the demand. But from a positive standpoint, that doesn't make the critics wrong and the list "good." It is not true (see, for instance, the Iraq war), that when there is no good answer, the proper response is to pretend the best answer good rather than admit that there is no good answer.

Of course, what's really needed is not a list, but something more informative and three-dimensional, such as perspective. If you want to be a corporate lawyer, the fact that Yale is better than Columbia - and that Fordham is at least as good as substantially higher ranked schools - is of no practical significance - but incoming law students are never told that. While Columbia is trying to get themselves once again ahead of NYU, the real differences between the two schools are completely missed by the US News - NYU is stronger at public interest, and probably fosters a more pragmatic, cooperative professor-student environment, while Columbia places better in the clerkship, plaecs slightly better for firms and federal government jobs, and fosters more of an ivory-tower intellectualist atmosphere.

In the end, it may be all a wash. It's unclear how much social harm is caused by misleading people to think that Chicago is uniformly better than Penn but uniformly worse than NYU, or that Emory is better than South Carolina, or whatever. People, including law students, have a remarkable ability to adapt, and the rigid randomness caused by the rankings is probably no worse for society than any number of arbitrary events that alter the lives of individuals.
6.4.2007 11:29am
Bretzky (mail):
anonVCfan:

Why would schools consistently ranked nos. 1, 2, and 3 by U.S. News want to make an effort to undermine the rankings?

They likely would not unless they felt ethically motivated to do so.


ATRGeek:

What exactly do you mean by "added more value"? If it refers to one's employment prospects after graduation, then wouldn't attending a school known for a particular specialization be a value added to the student. Graduating from a school with a particular reputation may allow one an extra six inches to get his foot in the door of a potential employer. Of course, if it refers to one's ability to hold a job after getting it, then that could be a little different.
6.4.2007 11:38am
ATRGeek:
Justin,

Given the amount of money it costs to go to law school (including tuition, living expenses, and opportunity costs), I don't think it is foolish for prospective law students to want value-added employment information, and for that information to be available in the best possible form. Turning that information into a generic ranking is probably inevitable, but actually isn't necessary for this purpose (indeed, I think prospective students today basically deconstruct the rankings they get from sources like USNWR and try to reconstruct their own personal rankings from the results).

I also think some of the self-reinforcement problems you identify would somewhat be taken care of by looking at value added, not just the raw results. Conversely, I think some of the putative distinguishing characteristics may also diminish or even disappear when you look at these issues on a value added basis (eg, would Columbia grads getting more clerkships and NYU grads getting more competitive public interest jobs--assuming both of those things are true--survive a rigorous self-selection study? Maybe not).

Still, perhaps some sort of filtering, signalling, training, networking, or other institutional effects would remain, and to the extent those effects did in fact add value, that would be good to know. Again, the whole point would be to give prospective students better information about what they are actually getting for their money.

Incidentally, I would also note that the intrinsic value of the law school experience is a reasonable consideration. I just get the sense it is a minor-to-negligible factor for most prospective law students.
6.4.2007 11:50am
Bretzky (mail):
Justin:

I think you are definitely correct that too many people mistakenly look at the U.S. News rankings in a king-of-the-hill fashion.

A better way to approach them is in a grouping fashion. I don't think most people would disagree with the statement that, on average, the top 10 schools in the rankings are "better" than the schools listed 91 through 100. However, as a list that purports to tell someone that NYU is better than Columbia or that South Carolina is better than Marquette, it is lacking. However, it can be useful as a list that groups the schools that comform to one's LSAT and GPA marks.

If one looks at the list as a purely vertical ranking system, then it may lead a person astray as to the best school for them. Thinking that you have to go to Wake Forest because it's the highest ranked school you got into could lead to three years (or less) of disappointment when a simple investigation of the schools below it could have told you that Florida was in fact the best school for you.
6.4.2007 11:57am
ATRGeek:
Bretzky,

The value added concept is basically this: take a prospective student with certain characteristics important to the relevant employers (various natural abilities and propensities, acquired skills, interests, and so on). Then, hypothesize that this person attends either School A or School B. How much does that decision itself affect how desirable the person becomes to the relevant employers?

In other words, it is important to control for what the student brings to the school as opposed to what the school adds to the student. And that is because often the student can take what he or she brings to the school to any school (in fact, that is basically the definition of non-value-added characteristics), and in a comparative situation the school should only get credit for the value that they add to the student in addition to what the student can already take with them to any school.

So, for example, take field-specific reputational effects (the effects of a school having a reputation for being good in some specific field). As I noted, there are at least two possible reputational effects: as you suggest, perhaps this school could add more value to students who seek employment in this field. However, the school could also just do a better job of recruiting good students when they are interested in this field. In the latter case, it could appear that the school does a relatively good job placing its students in that field, but that could just be because the relevant students brought more desirable characteristics with them to the school, not because the school added more value to those students.

To give a slightly more specific example, suppose we took a closer at the grads from this school and discovered that those who went into this particular field tended to have higher entering LSATs and undergrad GPAs and higher class rankings than their peers who went into other fields. That would be evidence that the school was not so much adding value as doing a better job at recruiting.

And this could be relevant if you were a prospective student interested in that field and, say, got a scholarship offer from an otherwise comparable school (one with the same general characteristics except for the lack of this field-specific reputations). If the first school was not in fact doing much to add much value to the prospects interested in this field, it might be in your interest to ignore their non-monetary recruitment efforts (eg, talking up their reputation in this field), and take the scholarship instead.
6.4.2007 12:08pm
ATRGeek:
As an addendum, one can also apply the value-added concept to the decision to attend law school at all. Obviously a JD is a strict requirement for some employers and therefore attending law school on average likely has some sort of marginal value-added benefit, but one can look generally at how much employment benefit law school graduates are actually realizing (eg, one could look at how much more income they are actually getting than otherwise similar people who enter the job market without a JD). Again, the point would be to compare this to the total costs of law school (including opportunity costs).
6.4.2007 12:19pm
ATRGeek:
As an addendum, one can also apply the value-added concept to the decision to attend law school at all. Obviously a JD is a strict requirement for some employers and therefore attending law school on average likely has some sort of marginal value-added benefit, but one can look generally at how much employment benefit law school graduates are actually realizing (eg, one could look at how much more income they are actually getting than otherwise similar people who enter the job market without a JD). Again, the point would be to compare this to the total costs of law school (including opportunity costs).
6.4.2007 12:19pm
ATRGeek:
Sorry for the double post (I am not sure how that happened).
6.4.2007 12:19pm
JosephSlater (mail):
First, some information in U.S. News is more reliable than other information. For example, as to employment info, at least for a long time, the "how many students were employed" question didn't specify "employed in a legal job."

Second, I'm entering my third year as a voter in the U.S. News "faculty reputation" survey. Actually, for the third straight year, I will get two votes in this survey, as I will remain my school's most recently tenured prof. and the chair of its appointments committee. Frankly, I have not figured out a way to do this task seriously and responsibly that would not be, in itself, at least a full time job.
6.4.2007 12:21pm
Justin (mail):
I'm only going to respond to a few points.

"would Columbia grads getting more clerkships and NYU grads getting more competitive public interest jobs--assuming both of those things are true--survive a rigorous self-selection study?"

As to the first one, yes. There are just too many JUDGES who DON'T CARE about the rankings, and given when they went to law school Columbia was far more prestigous, will offer a Columbia person before an NYU person. Maybe that will change over time, as judges become more "hiring savy," or at least more judges who went to law school after NYU's ascendence make the bench, but there you have it.

As to the second one, it depends on what you mean by "self selection." Because NYU's network of public-interest students is broader, they're able to 1) get better access to connections in the far less structured hiring process, and 2) have a better support network against the psychological force of the corporate world. At Columbia, I heard on more than one occasion, from more than one person, that going into public interest would be a "waste" of a Columbia degree. Now, I ultimately did not choose that route for myself, but I disagree with that conclusion. Yet I think that attitude is far more pervasive at Columbia than NYU, and it makes it harder to start committed - and stay committed - to public interest. (Indeed, I know a substantial number of people who seemed very interested in public interest work at Columbia, who are now at law firms. While many of them will eventually leave the firm life, I think the percentage of NYU people originally interested in public interest work who start their career in firms is smaller).
6.4.2007 12:21pm
ATRGeek:
Justin,

All that may be true, but that is precisely the sort of thing that would benefit from greater transparency and more rigorous studies. For example, it should be possible to do relatively simple entrance and exit surveys of students to see how well their preferences at matriculation match up with their employment results at graduation.
6.4.2007 12:32pm
ATRGeek:
By the way, I don't want to give the impression that this is not very tricky once you drill down into the details. For example, with clerking I suspect there is an adaptive preference issue, with students becoming less interested in clerking if they discover during law school (including in the first year) their prospects are dim, and vice-versa if they discover their prospects are good. That is why good entrance surveys would be just as important as good exit surveys, because we would need a baseline set of preferences.
6.4.2007 12:42pm
Mr L (mail):
They likely would not unless they felt ethically motivated to do so.

Ha ha ha, that's a good one. More likely, is that the 'top schools' -- those with premium name cachet who don't really benefit from a high US News ranking -- don't want the hassle of being compared to (and potentially eclipsed by) lesser schools who score an upset in some specialty, legitimately or by gaming the metrics.

Not to mention some of those pesky metrics interfere with other goals; I'm sure more than a few social engineers chafe that their Affirmitive Action admitees hurt the average SAT score, or that the 'faculty salary' part of the calculations gives them leverage to demand higher wages. And of course being 'second or third best' is also very annoying to those who would prefer to simply be ranked 'top tier'.
6.4.2007 12:46pm
Allan (mail):
Mr. Adler:
"Doth" is a singular form of "do". Kind of like "does". So, if you have a plural subject, the old form would be "do", not "doth". Please.
6.4.2007 12:49pm
Bretzky (mail):
ATRGeek:

I certainly understand what you mean by "value added" now.

Is it not possible though that an added value could simply be a law school's ability to recruit very able students to begin with?

If prestigious law firm A has a very strong inclination to hire graduates from law schools A through H only and you happen to attend law school J, then regardless of the qualities you brought with you to school, you will find it very difficult to be hired by prestigious law firm A.

I think that may apply even more strongly to specialized fields than to more general legal fields, like criminal and tax law, which most law schools provide a solid basis in.

In which case, wouldn't it be more prudent to forego the scholarship advantages of law school J in order to take advantage of the greater likelihood of landing a job by attending a school in group A through H.
6.4.2007 2:04pm
Oren (mail):
Here is the testimonial from the former dean of uPenn. I had the opportunity to meet with c-dive (as he's known at Reed) and he seems to genuinely enjoy his new job. Plus, he's quite a bit more relaxed these days.
6.4.2007 2:06pm
ys:


Allan:

Mr. Adler:
"Doth" is a singular form of "do". Kind of like "does". So, if you have a plural subject, the old form would be "do", not "doth". Please.

Actually, no. The old English 3d person plural form is "dōþ" - hence is fairly represented by "doth" You can look it up.
6.4.2007 2:13pm
ATRGeek:
Bretzky,

Again, that hypothesis is possible, but the other notable possibility is that Law Firm A has a tendency to hire more grads from Law Schools A through H just because that is where the better prospective employees tend to choose to go. So, it is also possible that a person who could get into one or more of Law Schools A through H but who chose Law School J instead (say, for a scholarship) would not in fact have a lower chance of getting a job at Law Firm A than if he had chosen one of Law Schools A through H (as opposed to the other students at Law School J who had no opportunity to go to Law Schools A through H because they could not get into any of those schools).

Keep in mind, by the way, that the law school attended is far from the only information employers can and do get about their possible employees. Indeed, even just something like knowing class rank or GPAs can provide an employer with a lot of information about the characteristics that the student brought to the school.

Anyway, the important point is that all this is testable, which is what I am suggesting that a prospect student would ideally want the schools (or someone else) to be doing. And if you want to break it down by specialties, that is testable too.
6.4.2007 2:20pm
ATRGeek:
Bretzky,

By the way, I should note again that it is entirely possible that even if employers did not think law schools added different amount of value in the pedagogical sense, it could still be the case that they preferred students from certain schools even once you controlled for other observable characteristics.

For example, I mentioned a possible signalling effect, which is the idea that in the mere act of choosing a certain school, the students might signal something about themselves that the employer could not otherwise learn. So, to continue our specialty example, if School X has a reputation for being good at specialty Y in particular, then students who could go to otherwise better schools but who choose School X for the sake of Y may be signalling to employers their genuine commitment to Y. And the fact that these particular students made such a sacrifice (of the generic benefits of otherwise better schools) for the sake of Y may make it difficult for them to duplicate this signalling effect with mere words. Of course, this theory actually requires it to be apparent to employers that the student had otherwise better options (in the absence of such information it would not be apparent to employers that a particular student's choice of School X represented such a sacrifice).

Again, I point this out just to suggest I am not trying to be close-minded about the possible ways in which schools could add value. But conversely, at a minimum we should be putting these claims to the test, and so far the schools have largely avoided doing so, or providing the information with which others could do so. Which, as I noted, strikes me as a sensible thing to avoid if you are worried about the results.
6.4.2007 2:31pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Indeed, I know a substantial number of people who seemed very interested in public interest work at Columbia, who are now at law firms.
Isn't this true at an awful lot of schools, though? Don't lots of people go in saying that they're interested in public interest work, and then rethink things as they go through law school?
6.4.2007 2:35pm
ATRGeek:
Sorry, one more addendum:

It may not be immediately clear why obscurity on points like these is in the law schools' collective interest. The basic reason why they could be the case is that law school admissions is not necessarily a zero sum game.

For example, suppose it were the case that specialty reputations did in fact add little or no value. Nonetheless, if a significant number of prospective students thought that they did add value, and each school could arrange to claim its own specialties, they could all benefit collectively to the extent they could each attract their share of such students (or more properly, attract those students at a higher price).

All this just depends on the idea that prospective students have other options besides law school (so if they do not like the value added proposition of the law schools available to them at the price they want to charge, those prospective students could opt out of law school entirely). In that sense, all this could be seen as a collective effort to make law school sound more attractive versus options like getting a job instead. Thus something like encouraging (or not providing the information that might discourage) the view that specialty reputations add value could pe part of this collective marketing effort.
6.4.2007 2:39pm
ATRGeek:
David N.,

I have heard that claimed by graduates of all the top law schools (that many people shift from public interest aspiration to working for firms), so I suspect it is indeed a widespread phenomenon. Again, what students might want to know is if this phenomenon is actually more widespread at some schools than others (and for at least some reasons independent of the students' original characteristics).
6.4.2007 2:42pm
Justin (mail):
DMN, I meant to imply that it seemed to be signficantly "more true" at Columbia than at NYU. Sorry if I didn't clearly explain myself. There are shades in this analysis, I think.
6.4.2007 2:46pm
Cato:
I am an NYU Law grad. As everyone knows, NYU is very highly ranked today. When I went there it was highly ranked, but not in such rarified company.

It annoys me no end that whenever I go back I am reminded that I would, "probably not get in today." And they want me to give. Why should I give to a school that wouldn't want me today?

This is all a result of of these ratings. I wanted to go there because when I visited the campus, I ran into Mick Jagger, not because of some rating.
6.4.2007 2:53pm
Aultimer:
USN rankings mostly reflect reputation and/or conventional wisdom. Here's the right way to use them.

A. Determine whether your target post-JD employer is a familial relative.

If the answer is yes, attend whatever law school you want above the bottom tier. If you only get into a bottom USNWR tier school, consider an MBA.

B. Determine whether you're willing to relocate to attend law school.

If the answer is no, attend the highest USNWR-ranked school in commuting distance to your home.

C. Seriously figure out if you want to be wealthy. If you're anything but 100% sure the answer is no, attend the highest USNWR-ranked school you can afford, and take on whatever debt you can. You may well wind up poor, but you'll never kick yourself saying "I wouldn't be poor if I chose to attend [Yale, etc.]."

If you're honestly Ok with the prospect that you might be an indebted working stiff, use the same criteria you used to pick an undergrad school.
6.4.2007 4:30pm
Justin (mail):
Aultimer, for anyone whose not trying to decide between American and Yale, that advice is pretty bad.
6.4.2007 4:35pm
Sarah (mail) (www):
I like the classic cost-benefit analysis (the last one I saw is old, though -- 1996 data.) USNWR ranking as compared with the three-year cost of attendance, factoring in average salaries for first-year employment and local cost of living adjustments. Virginia comes out first, followed by Georgia, Texas, Stanford, and Michigan.

Though, as an unmarried Mormon, I'm taking a careful look at male-female ratios (the last data I saw has Ave Maria [which I'm not applying to], BYU, Mississippi, Southern Illinois, Idaho, Samford, and Utah with the lowest female percentages -- but you have to take BYU/Utah with a grain of salt, since a very large number of male LDS grad students are already married.) And local weather and total enrollment are second only to a good FIRE score for any attached undergraduate school, tuition rates, and of course, lower rent levels in the local neighborhood.

The biggest cost of the USNWR system is, in any case, to the students who don't really know what they want: the ones who want to get into a challenging school with a great reputation (and who don't care much about cost) have a great tool. The ones who want something else (a great place to raise a family, a small school with a community atmosphere, the opportunity to work with visiting students from the former USSR, whatever) already know that USNWR doesn't show them what they need to know.

And honestly, the biggest problem a lot of the "I don't know what I really want" types have is that they don't even know why they want to go to law school in the first place. Ditching USNWR won't help with that issue.
6.4.2007 6:44pm
Justin (mail):
" the ones who want to get into a challenging school with a great reputation (and who don't care much about cost) have a great tool. The ones who want something else (a great place to raise a family, a small school with a community atmosphere, the opportunity to work with visiting students from the former USSR, whatever) already know that USNWR doesn't show them what they need to know."

This is an AWFULLY limited viewpoint as to what law schools offer - and what might not be publicly available information in terms of that offering. The public-law support information that is being discussed in this very thread is a perfect example of how limited this analysis truly is.

In any event, you are inferring that you are amongst the potential law students who are making uninformed decisions based on the rankings. Your apparent interest is "get into a challenging school," but its unclear how the rankings will determine suitability - particularly because you don't elaborate (or perhaps even truly know) what sort of challenge you are looking for. If you want to have to compete to get good grades, right off the bat, going to Yale (no grading system first year) may have drawbacks vis a vis Harvard, where competition for the Sears Prize is enormous. If you want your (conservative/liberal) views to be challenged by a (liberal/conservative) viewpoint to help you think critically, then going to (George Mason/Liberal Equivalent) would be a bad idea. And this doesn't go into the variety of challenges, student/faculty interaction, etc. that may be neccesary to tailor one's "challenge" to their own interests.

And this, of course, assumes you have no particular interests. The LSAT/GPA/"academic reputation" differences between 11 and 14, or for that matter, 19 and 31, is marginal. Why go to 11 over 14, or 19 over 31, when one can consider a range of other "fits" that might help create a better experience for yourself?
6.4.2007 7:01pm
logicnazi (mail) (www):
I can't speak too much about law school per see but my experience with college and grad school has taught me that one of the primary determiners of the quality of education that one will receive is the quality of the other students.

Any decent school has professors who know more than they ever teach the students but the difficulty of the classes will ultimately be set by the ability of the students to pass those classes. If most students are really bright professors will expect more from the class, if the students are only so-so the professor will expect less. Unfortunately it's psychologically much easier to motivate oneself to keep up with one's friends than it is to force yourself to study harder when you are already doing better than your classmates.

Thus so long as these rankings don't put schools with clearly insufficient resources at the top the mere fact that a school is near the top of the rankings may be enough to warrant it being near the top. In other words these rankings may do as much to manufacture the quality of a school as measure it.

Not sure if it is true but it's an interesting theory.
6.4.2007 9:29pm
ATRGeek:
logicnazi,

I think that goes to the intrinsic value of the law school experience, if you care about such things (although it could cut either way, depending on your preferences). I am less sure that is relevant to the instrumental value of law school.
6.4.2007 9:36pm