Yale/Stanford feels like a strong argument for changing the ranking metrics. Obviously, Stanford's employment rate is (marginally) higher because of its proximity to tech. Will that continue? No one knows. Will the skills relevant today be relevant in ten years? Everyone knows -- and the answer is no. The best post-AI law school preparation is to be as sharp, nimble, and adaptable as possible. (I would also add, as a recent lawprof, that some top schools remain institutionally clueless about AI.) Of course Stanford and all other top schools inculcate the relevant skills and virtues; the point isn't that Yale should still be #1. The point is that bar exam pass rate is irrelevant for predicting elite legal career success, and employment in the 2026 market is close to it.
I am not well versed in cases a.k.a. case law a.k.a. stare decisis to the point ofnfinding what I value thus far which is an intricate meaningful stance on why and 🤔 how diction that flourishes in vocabulary, human real time turn and experience, real time reasoning and thought process and words big enough to move a book (the ones we reed). So, with this being said I am observing the intricacies of what's happening pairing up with the onset of statements pertaining to AI and LAW. I can't see AI not adding to the greatness of extinguished corruption and stupidity 🙄 but replacing the knowledge of power.... this cannot be accepted. The other half of knowledge is real time analogous or real time analogy. It's quite simple to state humans did it all this time and are still needed in NATURES endeavors like interpretation and enforcement. But understanding the importance of the two is not my gist of this comment I just threw some stuff in. AI will be amazing and do amazing things like 👍 👌 ex out illegal property seizures by precise measurement of penalty EFiling 👏 😀 👌 millions of cases and catching theft through paper pushing and file concealing while attacking the actual.people. the end.
It seems to me that the rankings change and focus on employment and bar passage makes the rankings much less important at the top (come on, all things being equal most people aren't going to Stanford over Yale, or Penn over Harvard) but also maybe way more helpful outside of the ~top 20? Seems like those are precisely the things to focus on if you're picking schools at that level.
I personally know numerous people who have chosen Stanford Law School over Yale Law School. While both schools represent the absolute pinnacle in US legal education, Stanford offers distinct advantages for those who prefer a more salubrious living environment and direct access to the titans of Silicon Valley.
That's why I said "most". I have a very good source that, at least as of a handful of years ago, HLS and Stanford both got about 1/3 of people who were accepted at YLS and their respective schools. Of course people have reasons to go to the other but YLS is still the school that most people will go to if they have the chance - and it's the hardest to get into.
I guess we’ll never know, but I have the sense that US News optimizes for headline-making rankings within a certain range. By contrast, a head-to-head comparison of which school a student admitted to both would choose is, to me, a better gauge of prestige. And if that’s the test, it’s almost certainly still YLS > HLS, SLS > the rest.
Looking at "a head-to-head comparison of which school a student admitted to both would choose is" is the basis of the Frye/Ryan ranking system I mention in footnote 8.
The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) is not in the top 50, but it is - like Temple and Penn State - a public law school. Specifically, under PA law, each of these universities is "state-related."
Amusing that a Yale Law School graduate uses his superior legal education to write trivia and about his dog and child to the multitudes instead of providing much needed legal services to individuals.
Experience for over 51 years in the legal profession teaches that graduates of these “top” law schools rarely engage with individual clients and instead seek income from teaching, sitting “on the bench”, writing rarely read treatises, or this kind of fleeting trivia, or do “transactional” work for institutions and corporations.
It is the graduates of lower ranked schools who actually practice law with individual human beings who have serious needs.
1. I don’t disagree with this point, as a general matter (setting aside those grads who go into public-interest work): “It is the graduates of lower-ranked schools who actually practice law with individual human beings who have serious needs.”
Wanted to add I think your definition of the T14 is inaccurate. It was never just ”the 14 schools in the top 14.” It refers to the 14 schools that had all at some point been ranked in the top 10, which is why the T14 has traditionally remained the same 14 schools.
The point of that standard is a way of identifying the schools with a long-term, proven claim to elite status, rather than treating every yearly shuffle as a new category. It’s kind of anti-ranking so it wouldn’t change because there’s a different 14 schools this year in the top 14.
The term T14 is more of an informal convention, so there isn’t really an official source defining it. But if helpful, here are a couple discussions on online forums that reflect people using it that way, along with a Wikipedia page that describes the idea in the same way (see the U.S. News & World section):
1. Check out this Volokh Conspiracy post by Professor Stuart Benjamin of Duke Law, based on detailed analysis of the rankings going back to their inception. See especially the second paragraph, where he refutes the claim that "the T14 should instead be defined as the top 10 schools that had ever appeared in the US News top 10":
2. If you look at the Wikipedia entry, the source cited for this theory of the T14 is actually... a debate I was (tangentially) involved in with Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice, two of my former colleagues from Above the Law (link below).
It seems this theory of the T14 came from... a random voicemail we received at ATL from an anonymous admissions dean at a T14 school. Joe didn't put much stock in it:
"The former dean of admissions at a T14 doesn’t want anyone else considered T14? Shocking.
Of course everyone knows the schools who occupied the top 14 slots—until this year—were the same schools in the top 14 every year of the USNWR rankings. The rank order may change year in and year out, but they always held those top slots."
Yale/Stanford feels like a strong argument for changing the ranking metrics. Obviously, Stanford's employment rate is (marginally) higher because of its proximity to tech. Will that continue? No one knows. Will the skills relevant today be relevant in ten years? Everyone knows -- and the answer is no. The best post-AI law school preparation is to be as sharp, nimble, and adaptable as possible. (I would also add, as a recent lawprof, that some top schools remain institutionally clueless about AI.) Of course Stanford and all other top schools inculcate the relevant skills and virtues; the point isn't that Yale should still be #1. The point is that bar exam pass rate is irrelevant for predicting elite legal career success, and employment in the 2026 market is close to it.
I am not well versed in cases a.k.a. case law a.k.a. stare decisis to the point ofnfinding what I value thus far which is an intricate meaningful stance on why and 🤔 how diction that flourishes in vocabulary, human real time turn and experience, real time reasoning and thought process and words big enough to move a book (the ones we reed). So, with this being said I am observing the intricacies of what's happening pairing up with the onset of statements pertaining to AI and LAW. I can't see AI not adding to the greatness of extinguished corruption and stupidity 🙄 but replacing the knowledge of power.... this cannot be accepted. The other half of knowledge is real time analogous or real time analogy. It's quite simple to state humans did it all this time and are still needed in NATURES endeavors like interpretation and enforcement. But understanding the importance of the two is not my gist of this comment I just threw some stuff in. AI will be amazing and do amazing things like 👍 👌 ex out illegal property seizures by precise measurement of penalty EFiling 👏 😀 👌 millions of cases and catching theft through paper pushing and file concealing while attacking the actual.people. the end.
It seems to me that the rankings change and focus on employment and bar passage makes the rankings much less important at the top (come on, all things being equal most people aren't going to Stanford over Yale, or Penn over Harvard) but also maybe way more helpful outside of the ~top 20? Seems like those are precisely the things to focus on if you're picking schools at that level.
I personally know numerous people who have chosen Stanford Law School over Yale Law School. While both schools represent the absolute pinnacle in US legal education, Stanford offers distinct advantages for those who prefer a more salubrious living environment and direct access to the titans of Silicon Valley.
That's why I said "most". I have a very good source that, at least as of a handful of years ago, HLS and Stanford both got about 1/3 of people who were accepted at YLS and their respective schools. Of course people have reasons to go to the other but YLS is still the school that most people will go to if they have the chance - and it's the hardest to get into.
I don’t know. I definitely would have taken Stanford over Yale and did take Chicago over Stanford in 1986.
I guess we’ll never know, but I have the sense that US News optimizes for headline-making rankings within a certain range. By contrast, a head-to-head comparison of which school a student admitted to both would choose is, to me, a better gauge of prestige. And if that’s the test, it’s almost certainly still YLS > HLS, SLS > the rest.
Looking at "a head-to-head comparison of which school a student admitted to both would choose is" is the basis of the Frye/Ryan ranking system I mention in footnote 8.
Good post and very informative. Very small point: Temple is also a public school in the top-50.
I was also going to point this out.. and with that, 3 Philly area schools in the top 51 with Villanova Temple and Penn!
Oh, I did not know that—thanks! I'll correct the relevant section of the discussion.
The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) is not in the top 50, but it is - like Temple and Penn State - a public law school. Specifically, under PA law, each of these universities is "state-related."
Pitt was +2 this year: 79 to 77.
Yay! Surely a more enlightened Coast!
Amusing that a Yale Law School graduate uses his superior legal education to write trivia and about his dog and child to the multitudes instead of providing much needed legal services to individuals.
Experience for over 51 years in the legal profession teaches that graduates of these “top” law schools rarely engage with individual clients and instead seek income from teaching, sitting “on the bench”, writing rarely read treatises, or this kind of fleeting trivia, or do “transactional” work for institutions and corporations.
It is the graduates of lower ranked schools who actually practice law with individual human beings who have serious needs.
1. I don’t disagree with this point, as a general matter (setting aside those grads who go into public-interest work): “It is the graduates of lower-ranked schools who actually practice law with individual human beings who have serious needs.”
2. I do not have a dog!
Wanted to add I think your definition of the T14 is inaccurate. It was never just ”the 14 schools in the top 14.” It refers to the 14 schools that had all at some point been ranked in the top 10, which is why the T14 has traditionally remained the same 14 schools.
The point of that standard is a way of identifying the schools with a long-term, proven claim to elite status, rather than treating every yearly shuffle as a new category. It’s kind of anti-ranking so it wouldn’t change because there’s a different 14 schools this year in the top 14.
I have never heard this theory. Do you have a citation for that?
The term T14 is more of an informal convention, so there isn’t really an official source defining it. But if helpful, here are a couple discussions on online forums that reflect people using it that way, along with a Wikipedia page that describes the idea in the same way (see the U.S. News & World section):
https://www.reddit.com/r/lawschooladmissions/comments/1m5ca8j/what_t14_actually_means/
https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comments/ys6lz/quick_question_why_do_people_refer_to_t14_and_not/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school_rankings_in_the_United_States
1. Check out this Volokh Conspiracy post by Professor Stuart Benjamin of Duke Law, based on detailed analysis of the rankings going back to their inception. See especially the second paragraph, where he refutes the claim that "the T14 should instead be defined as the top 10 schools that had ever appeared in the US News top 10":
https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/07/the-us-news-t14-is-dead-and-has-been-replaced-by-the-t11-or-if-you-prefer-the-t10-with-11-members/
2. If you look at the Wikipedia entry, the source cited for this theory of the T14 is actually... a debate I was (tangentially) involved in with Elie Mystal and Joe Patrice, two of my former colleagues from Above the Law (link below).
It seems this theory of the T14 came from... a random voicemail we received at ATL from an anonymous admissions dean at a T14 school. Joe didn't put much stock in it:
"The former dean of admissions at a T14 doesn’t want anyone else considered T14? Shocking.
Of course everyone knows the schools who occupied the top 14 slots—until this year—were the same schools in the top 14 every year of the USNWR rankings. The rank order may change year in and year out, but they always held those top slots."
https://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/is-t14-dead-is-it-t15-t13-was-t14-an-arbitrary-ranking-all-along/