Law is all about the rankings

September 16, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Another group throws its hat into the ring of law-related rankings with a “best” summer associate program list. Because law students don’t have enough lists of rankings to obsess about.

When thinking about becoming an attorney, depending on when this was, you may have studied U.S. News and Report’s lists naming the top law schools in the country. You could have even chosen your law school (or cut out other choices) based on this list or some other ranking.

Once you get into that law school, if you’re heading toward the path of big law, then you may look at lists like National Law Journal’s top 250, or the American Bar Association’s Best Law Firms for Women, to get an idea of where you’d like to practice.

A website for job hunters, Vault, has now created a list ranking the best overall summer associate programs around the U.S. Vault releases rankings of law firms overall and based on diversity and practice areas, but this is the first time it has released their rankings in this area. They aren’t the first to do so – American Lawyer has ranked summer associate programs for years based on surveys from associates. Only two Indiana firms made American Lawyer’s 2010 list, most likely because they are the only ones whose summer associates responded. Baker & Daniels was ranked first; Taft Stettinius & Hollister was second.

On Vault’s website, you can see their overall ranking for these programs, which were considered the most realistic, the ones that best prepared students, or which ones were the most fun. No firms from Indiana made any of the lists, but it is narrowed down to only the top 25 or 50, based on the category.

What do you think about ranking summer associate programs? Does it put more pressure on firms? Is it needed?

Of course, you want to know – Ropes & Gray in Boston apparently has the most fun summer associate program.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT