So are you suggesting both that the top 50 schools are tier one, but also that there is a recognized subcategory of truly elite schools within that tier that are separated from the rest?

From a practical standpoint, how is that different from saying that T14 is tier one, and the rest of the top 50 is something else?

In reality, the opportunities provided by T14 law schools are massively different than even those offered by schools that are just outside of it (perennially Texas/UCLA/Vandy/USC). And those schools have substantially different opportunities than schools ranked in the 30s, and so on.

So, for the purposes of discussion, what is the basis for claiming that the top 50 schools are all tier one? An arbitrary list that stops at 50 because it’s a neatly packaged number?

My point is that a more substantive examination of law school rankings reveals tiers that are based on job opportunity, placement, and starting salaries. On that standard, the T14 is a clear tier one, with the next 15 or so schools being a clear tier two.

In a neutral market, a firm will likely be most interested in a Duke grad, then a Boston University grad, then a BYU grad, absent alumni connections or the firm having a good history of hiring grads from a specific school. But you can say that they are all “tier one” schools if you really want to.

Further, it is interesting that folks are claiming that all top 50 schools are tier one; does that not suggest that the current 8 spot difference between Utah and BYU is largely immaterial to an argument that BYU is higher ranked and therefore “better?”