Top Law Schools Guide PDF

Many of you applying to law school intend to work for a law firm after graduating. The question you should ask is, "what do law firm recruiters think about each law school?"

Obviously, law school rankings are one consideration. However, law school rankings are only a tiny part of the picture. Your law school selection process should be far more detailed.

Luckily, there's a free resource at your disposal to tell you exactly what law firm recruiters think.

Check out the 2014 BCG Attorney Search Guide to America’s Top 50 Law Schools (PDF). This weighty and well-researched book has a ton of info about what each law school is actually like. If this info interests law firm recruiters, it should probably interest you, too.

This book of law school profiles is useful even if you don't want to work at a firm, and it's free.


  1. Steve - I followed the link to the BCG pdf, and here's what I read in the first paragraph of the introduction: "Information is not knowledge. Only organized and contextualized data can provide meaningful information."

    At first glance, I wondered if it wouldn't have been better to start with "Knowledge is not information," and then go on to explain that the only way to get meaningful information is by finding organized and contextualized data. But now it occurs to me, maybe saying "Knowledge is not information" is structurally the same as saying "Information is not knowledge."

    Is that so?

  2. Their sentence and yours are structurally the same.

    If it's information, then it's not knowledge.
    ( I -> ~K )


    If it's knowledge, then it's not information.
    ( K -> ~I )

    Therefore, the two are not equivalent.

    However, these first two sentences suggest something slightly more complicated.

    What the authors really mean is that information ALONE isn't sufficient to be "knowledge."

    The authors suggest that data equals information - although they don't explicitly say this. Thus, it's an unstated, but required, assumption.

    They say that data/information must be organized and contextualized in order to be meaningful.

    The authors suggest meaningful information is equivalent to knowledge. This is another large missing assumption that must be true in order for the argument to work.

    Glad to see you're dissecting something as dry as this. You'll rock the LSAT and make a great lawyer!

  3. Steve-while I appreciate your effort to apply LSAT reasoning to this particular issue, I feel the need to correct your reasoning a little bit, since I am sort of a Math student and especially since this game is fun.

    I'd like to prove that, contrary to your implication, 'A is not B' is not exactly equivalent to 'if C is A, then C is not B'. Like you pointed out, the second statement is not reversible. The first statement, by contrast, is reversible. To say that 'A is not B' means that A is different from B. Since A and B are two different things, then B is different from A and hence 'B is not A'. To sum it up, 'A is not B' automatically implies that 'B is not A'. We can likewise prove that 'B is not A' implies that 'A is not B'. Since those two statements imply each other by a reversible relationship, they are exactly the same.

    That being said, I agree with you that what the authors mean is probably that information alone is not knowlege. It is funny that the following statement does not mention knowledge at all and that it requires some connection to the issue of knowledge, perhaps by saying that only meaningful information can become knowledge.
    Thankfully this is a law school guide but not a law guide. :P

  4. Thanks for commenting - I enjoyed your analysis.

    However, when you "reversed" the former statement, you actually took the statement's contrapositive.

    "A is not B" means "If A -> NOT B"

    If something is A, then it's not B.

    If something is B, then it's not A.

    'A is not B' IS exactly equivalent to 'if C is A, then C is not B'.

    The reverse (often called "Mistaken Reversal") of "A is not B" (If A -> NOT B) would be "Not B is A." Your claim is that this reversal is valid for "A is Not B" but not valid for "If C -> A, then C -> NOT B." The reverse would not be valid for either of these statements.

    If we say apples are not blue, this doesn't mean that everything that's not blue is an apple. This statement is not reversible.

    What it means is, "If it's an Apple -> Not Blue." We can take the contrapositive - "If Blue, then Not Apple."

    Hope this helps!