Amir Efrati, the Wall Street Journal writer who authored this piece on the poor legal job market especially for those at non-elite schools, writes another must read article for incoming law students about choosing a law school and increasing your chances of landing a big law job. Here's the link.

To summarize, outside of the top 20-30 schools, you can basically ignore US news rankings and pay more attention to things like debt, location, employment data, and on-campus recruiting.

Here is a link to the fancy graphs that accompany the article. I added them simply because I'd like to see some color in this post. Click more to see the rest:

UPDATE from Bill Henderson, the law professor doing the comprehensive study cited in the article, on his blog Empirical Legal Studies:

Chances of landing a large law firm job. In the story, I am quoted, "If you go to a school ranked 35th or 40th over one that's ranked 70th or 80th, you are by no means substantially increasing your chances of landing a high-paying job." This is more than just my opinion. When I made this statement, I was looking a data that took months to compile. Further, the same analysis holds true when you compare, say, the 25th or 30th with the 50th or 60th. My point is simple: a higher rank in US News does not necessarily provide students with an opportunity set that justifies a price premium. That will be the central takeaway of our alternative ranking--from a student perspective, over-reliance on US News can be a big financial mistake.

UPDATE 2: Some good discussion going on here at the WSJ Law Blog. Efrati is getting beat up a little for the "big fish" strategy. This critique makes sense on the surface because I completely agree that applicants should not assume they will end up in the top of the class no matter how much better their GPA/LSAT numbers are than the rest of the class'. Law school is too competitive. But...

Assume an applicant is deciding between two schools, one ranked in the 40's where an applicant's numbers are average, and one in the 90's where her numbers are in the very top of the class, the lower ranked school will:

1. Likely offer a better scholarship package, maybe a full-ride. So the need (maybe a necessity for some) of a biglaw salary upon graduation is greatly reduced due to lower debt load. This is important because if the applicant does not end up in the, say, top 10%, which we've decided is hard to do no matter where you go, she is unlikely to have a shot at biglaw at either school.
2. At least increase (not gaurantee of course) the applicant's chance of being at the top of the class which leads to transfers, better job opportunities, etc. This, of course, assuming that there is at least some sort of correlation between LSAT/GPA numbers and performance.

All of this while, as Prof. Henderson points out, job opportunities at the lower ranked school are somewhat similar to those of the higher ranked school anyway.

So really, the fact that ending up in the top 10% at any school is so unpredictable is an argument for hedging your bets by trying to be the big fish at the lower-ranked school if the lower-ranked school will be significantly less costly, isn't it?

I think the "big fish" still could be a smart strategy, but it depends on if the cost of tuition/scholarship offer from the lower ranked school.