Is it better to be an average student at a "top-tier" school or a top student at a "mid-tier" school?

[Philosophy]

I know this question involves a lot of assumptions such as cost, personal preference, geography, and the existence of a ranking system to begin with.

However, I'm genuinely curious as to what people think.

The reason why I'm asking is because there are atleast two relevant scenarios in which this could apply: 

1. If somebody is doing really well during their 1L year and they are considering transferring to a better school. (Go to a bigger pond? or stay as the bigger fish in a smaller pond?)

2. How employers would view / compare the above two hypothetical types of students if they had to pick one. 

 

(I ask this question in good faith, please don't sh*t on me! Thanks in advance 😄)

[LMP]

The phrasing of some terms here is a little vague which makes it hard to answer. 

When you ask which would be best I take it to mean "which would be best for achieving desirable employment outcomes?". Because otherwise the question doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Which lets us rephrase the questions as, "Would competitive firms or other gatekeepers of oppertunity rather see a high average or a 'prestigous' school"? 

I think the answer to that question is, you'd always want to be in the top 5% of your class and being in that strata makes the name of the school (so long as it is Canadian) more or less meaningless. 

Where the question gets more diffcult is if we start lowering that percentage. Would I be happy any school at all if I was guranteed to be in the top 5%? The top 10%?

Sure.

What about the top 15% or 20%?  

Maybe not. And so the answer shifts a bit when we break the question down somewhat. 

Overall, I think the question isn't very useful outside of an abstract discussion like this because we have no mechanism to know or guarantee how we will perform each year. 

[pinotgrigio]

I don't have a direct answer, but I don't think someone could jump quite like that in relation to the course medians by transferring from U of T to any school with lower entry medians. A lot of people choose schools based on proximity to friends and family, or just choose a school based on affordability (anything but U of T/ Ontario schools in this case). These factors distort what would otherwise create the scenario you're thinking of.

[Turtles]

9 hours ago, LMP said:

The phrasing of some terms here is a little vague which makes it hard to answer. 

When you ask which would be best I take it to mean "which would be best for achieving desirable employment outcomes?". Because otherwise the question doesn't make a lot of sense. 

Which lets us rephrase the questions as, "Would competitive firms or other gatekeepers of oppertunity rather see a high average or a 'prestigous' school"? 

I think the answer to that question is, you'd always want to be in the top 5% of your class and being in that strata makes the name of the school (so long as it is Canadian) more or less meaningless. 

Where the question gets more diffcult is if we start lowering that percentage. Would I be happy any school at all if I was guranteed to be in the top 5%? The top 10%?

Sure.

What about the top 15% or 20%?  

Maybe not. And so the answer shifts a bit when we break the question down somewhat. 

Overall, I think the question isn't very useful outside of an abstract discussion like this because we have no mechanism to know or guarantee how we will perform each year. 

If you start comparing the outcomes of medalists between schools, you might not feel so school agnostic. Even at a high level of performance, school name can matter a ton.

[Rashabon]

12 hours ago, pinotgrigio said:

I don't have a direct answer, but I don't think someone could jump quite like that in relation to the course medians by transferring from U of T to any school with lower entry medians. A lot of people choose schools based on proximity to friends and family, or just choose a school based on affordability (anything but U of T/ Ontario schools in this case). These factors distort what would otherwise create the scenario you're thinking of.

I think you've read the post backwards. It would be someone jumping to U of T, not from U of T.

[pinotgrigio]

2 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I think you've read the post backwards. It would be someone jumping to U of T, not from U of T.

My bad. I still think the same logic applies though, I don't think a good student at another faculty who transfers to U of T would suddenly fall a noticeable amount in the medians.

[easttowest]

This is all pretty moot if you’re asking about the structured recruit since you’d be applying after you transferred but based on your grades from your former school, which would be obvious from your transcript. 

[Rashabon]

Just now, pinotgrigio said:

My bad. I still think the same logic applies though, I don't think a good student at another faculty who transfers to U of T would suddenly fall a noticeable amount in the medians.

I'm not sure that's sound logic, but I can't really say for certain since I didn't ask for the grades from the transfer folks.

 

My personal response to the OP's question is that it is moot. The people asking the question are the people that don't need to ask the question. If you're debating whether to be a big fish in a small pond or a smaller fish in a big pond, you're more than likely to really be the plankton.

[lawess]

 

1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

I'm not sure that's sound logic, but I can't really say for certain since I didn't ask for the grades from the transfer folks.

 

My personal response to the OP's question is that it is moot. The people asking the question are the people that don't need to ask the question. If you're debating whether to be a big fish in a small pond or a smaller fish in a big pond, you're more than likely to really be the plankton.

this comment is a great example of what's wrong with this forum. if you're unable to answer the question, simply say nothing. i sure hope saying this to OP made you feel better.

[CB2021]

11 minutes ago, kilgoretrout said:

 

this comment is a great example of what's wrong with this forum. if you're unable to answer the question, simply say nothing. i sure hope saying this to OP made you feel better.

That's what Rashabon does tho. But Rashabon also provides some very valuable insights sometimes. 

[lawess]

4 minutes ago, CB2021 said:

That's what Rashabon does tho. But Rashabon also provides some very valuable insights sometimes. 

listen... i know a lot of people on here think being rude makes them look cool. but there's really no reason for it. the insight is great, the nastiness doesn't have to be typed out and posted. this isn't specific to rashabon. 

[SlytherinLLP]

This question has come up frequently on this forum and the reason it is often met with snark is because you can't game the system and inflate your chances by strategically selecting a law school with lesser or higher admissions stats.

Unlike the US, where you have a plethora of crappy predatory private law schools, the disparity in the quality of law schools in Canada is significantly less. The answer is there is no meaningful advantage in strategically selecting a law school on the hope that it would be easier to outperform your peers. It's just not a worthwhile pursuit. 

As an aside, I've participated in external moots and found hard-working law students from across the country to be equally exceptional. Don't worry about it. 

[efrefgg]

39 minutes ago, lawess said:

this isn't specific to rashabon. 

True, but he takes it above-and-beyond.

[Rashabon]

58 minutes ago, lawess said:

 

this comment is a great example of what's wrong with this forum. if you're unable to answer the question, simply say nothing. i sure hope saying this to OP made you feel better.

It's a question without a true answer and it is silly, for the reasons others have noted. You can't game the system. It is trite and common knowledge that certain schools have better outcomes than others. That question has been asked and answered a dozen times. The broader point is, if you automatically assume you will be average or less at a "better" school, you're not the big fish at your own school and it's arrogance to think otherwise. I think the people that ask this question are likely to be lower than average at the "better" school, because they are already acknowledging they are a weaker candidate and have given up before even trying. The people with the potential to succeed are not concerned with "the competition" at another school because they've figured out law school is a personal experience. Comparing yourself constantly to your peers is a losing fight.

[AllRise]

23 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

It's a question without a true answer and it is silly, for the reasons others have noted. You can't game the system. It is trite and common knowledge that certain schools have better outcomes than others. That question has been asked and answered a dozen times. The broader point is, if you automatically assume you will be average or less at a "better" school, you're not the big fish at your own school and it's arrogance to think otherwise. I think the people that ask this question are likely to be lower than average at the "better" school, because they are already acknowledging they are a weaker candidate and have given up before even trying. The people with the potential to succeed are not concerned with "the competition" at another school because they've figured out law school is a personal experience. Comparing yourself constantly to your peers is a losing fight.

I would echo and expand on Rashabon's comments here. If you have not had professional work experience before, law school (and any post-secondary education for that matter) may seem like this larger-than-life event that creates an immense amount of pressure and competition, but as you get older you will come to realize that your experience with any kind of education is what you make of it. No one is debating the inherent competitive nature of applying with your peers for limited positions with firms, but if something doesn't work out the way you hoped many times another opportunity will present itself. 

My partner said something to me that really helped my perspective, and I have carried it with me since he first said it: "Nothing is as good as it seems, nothing is as bad as it seems." For most scenarios, this ends up being true. 

To OP, I was top 10% of my class for 1L and I transferred out to a different school. I didn't once consider whether I was going to be a "little fish," I'm confident I'll do fine. If it isn't top 10% again, so be it, but I am focused on grades and I'm confident my work experience will speak for me. The age old conversations on the law school prestige hierarchy will continue forevermore, but at the end of the day I would focus singularly on achieving the highest grades you can and adding meaningful work experience regardless of which law school you attend, because that it what employers really care about. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by AllRise
Used competitive twice in the same sentence, unacceptable.

[ZineZ]

47 minutes ago, SlytherinLLP said:

This question has come up frequently on this forum and the reason it is often met with snark is because you can't game the system and inflate your chances by strategically selecting a law school with lesser or higher admissions stats.

Unlike the US, where you have a plethora of crappy predatory private law schools, the disparity in the quality of law schools in Canada is significantly less. The answer is there is no meaningful advantage in strategically selecting a law school on the hope that it would be easier to outperform your peers. It's just not a worthwhile pursuit. 

As an aside, I've participated in external moots and found hard-working law students from across the country to be equally exceptional. Don't worry about it. 

I was going to say something very similar to what has been mentioned by Slytherin. OP, the "pond" barely exists. It's something that people worry about a lot during admissions and maybe during law school. And while people have pride in where they went to school, I can't remember the last time I heard it brought up as a way to judge a colleague/student in a workplace. 

If you're looking to get into a firm, concentrate on being in the top 10-15% of your class. It's what will actually matter during OCIs and other processes. 

[Hegdis]

17 hours ago, Philosophy said:

1. If somebody is doing really well during their 1L year and they are considering transferring to a better school. (Go to a bigger pond? or stay as the bigger fish in a smaller pond?)

2. How employers would view / compare the above two hypothetical types of students if they had to pick one. 

So back in the day, THE place to go to learn criminal law was Queen's. Then it was Osgoode. Then back to Queen's. Then Manitoba.

Then I realized that when lawyers say that a school is a "better" or "best" school for something, they're either talking about 1. their own experience or 2. the background of some one who just handed them their ass in court, or (distantly) 3. the school their kid has researched as an applicant and informed them "everyone says" is the Best School.

It just moves around. My alma mater, Queen's, used to be a the destination criminal school. Then Dean Flanagan focused on the international / business angle. Last I heard it had a great family law program some one was trying to expand on. But I'm not really sure. I can tell you that the criminal, business, and family law classes I took were great and I learned a lot from them - I enjoyed my time as a law student and tried to make the most of it.

When it came to getting employed I had a lot of criminal law classes, clinical experience, and I immediately picked a fight with my interviewer about my definition of "social justice" because I thought he was arrogant, and he liked that so much he hired me. Turns out this guy thinks out loud and needed a student who wasn't going to back down, even though he thought my concept of social justice was stupid (and now, umpteen years later, I acknowledge was stupid).

 

If some one looking for work moved from one school to another I'd only notice if the school brought them into my jurisdiction and I did a lot of province-specific law, or if they did it to pursue some kind of exceptional opportunity, like a research project on some very niche and relevant area of law to my practise. Otherwise? Couldn't care less.

[PzabbytheLawyer]

1 hour ago, Hegdis said:

When it came to getting employed I had a lot of criminal law classes, clinical experience, and I immediately picked a fight with my interviewer about my definition of "social justice" because I thought he was arrogant, and he liked that so much he hired me. Turns out this guy thinks out loud and needed a student who wasn't going to back down, even though he thought my concept of social justice was stupid (and now, umpteen years later, I acknowledge was stupid).

Sounds like a fun boss!

[bebebebebe]

I honestly don't think it matters but it is probably better to be below average at a top tier school than average at a mid tier school.

[CBay]

On 7/27/2022 at 2:04 PM, ZineZ said:

If you're looking to get into a firm, concentrate on being in the top 10-15% of your class. It's what will actually matter during OCIs and other processes. 

Easier said at some schools than others, no? Which speaks to the validity of OP's question...

[ZineZ]

7 hours ago, CBay said:

Easier said at some schools than others, no? Which speaks to the validity of OP's question...

No. There is no reliable metric that has shown that one school is easier than another. Your undergrad grades don't necessarily translate into a guarantee of exceptional performance at any school - I've known folks with lower GPAs excel at law school, and folks who topped their classes end up with Cs.  Put in factors such as exceptional students picking "mid-tier" schools for reasons that include scholarships/location/sentimentality - and you have a situation where the curve remains difficult regardless of your school.

I understand picking a school based on factors such as prestige/alumni support etc. But trying to game the curve isn't going to work.

[CBay]

18 hours ago, ZineZ said:

No. There is no reliable metric that has shown that one school is easier than another.

Maybe not a reliable metric that shows that one school is easier than another. But there are certainly indicators that the relative academic strength of student pools differ from school to school. And when you're graded on a curve, having a cohort of stronger students means that it will be harder for many students to graduate in the top 10% of their class. 

We also have indicators that show that curves are tighter at some schools than others. Again, this would suggest that some students suffer significantly worse outcomes at those schools than they would if they were at a school with a pancake curve.

[Lawstudents20202020]

4 hours ago, CBay said:

We also have indicators that show that curves are tighter at some schools than others.

Citation needed

[CleanHands]

11 minutes ago, Lawstudents20202020 said:

Citation needed

It's definitely true. I've written this before here and provided the source and all that so I'm not going to bother with that rigmarole again, but only 4% of my class got an A- average in 1L and literally not a single person received an A average. The contrast between that and a school like Queen's or Ottawa is massive.

[Lawstudents20202020]

6 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

It's definitely true. I've written this before here and provided the source and all that so I'm not going to bother with that rigmarole again, but only 4% of my class got an A- average in 1L and literally not a single person received an A average. The contrast between that and a school like Queen's or Ottawa is massive.

Fair enough, TRU does something similar by having a "B median" instead of a curve. I've definitely seen course prizes go to a B+ grades. I've just never thought of it in terms of a tighter curve.