SMU v UT for Dallas

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:59 am

kalvano wrote:And I have done my research - spoken to hiring partners in firms, many currently practicing Dallas attorneys, a few judges, and the Dallas DA's office.


I'm not disputing that SMU has done well pre-ITE, but my question is, is all of this still holding up with the economy shifting the way it has? It's obvious that UT is going to keep graduating the same number of students, and it's obvious that NYC firms just aren't hiring at anywhere near the numbers they used to. Many of those UT grads that would've gone to NYC or other markets in past years will have to go somewhere else now, and that somewhere else is probably looking closer to home where there are still jobs, such as Dallas.

I'm sure that there will still be some hiring from SMU done, but likely less and more toward the top of the class than before. That's the concern I think OP and anyone else considering SMU should be aware of, especially since SMU doesn't place well anywhere else. This is playing out across the country, and I don't see how it can't really be playing out in Texas too.

User avatar
kurama20
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby kurama20 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:07 am

I'm not sure exactly who said it, but just know that the nlj250 placement chart is an awful awful way to measure Texas firm placement. I seriously doubt that there are that many Texas firms on the nlj250--that chart is so NYC focused it isn't even funny. After that it's probably best for determining DC and Cali placement (even for those markets it's a bad proxy). However, for Texas it's pretty awful--firms like Susman Godfrey and Beck Redden will not pop up on the nlj250--I'm pretty sure that's a significant Texas firm. People put too much weight on the nlj250, it's best used for a NYC proxy.

User avatar
najumobi
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby najumobi » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:10 am

vanwinkle wrote:
kalvano wrote:And I have done my research - spoken to hiring partners in firms, many currently practicing Dallas attorneys, a few judges, and the Dallas DA's office.


I'm not disputing that SMU has done well pre-ITE, but my question is, is all of this still holding up with the economy shifting the way it has? It's obvious that UT is going to keep graduating the same number of students, and it's obvious that NYC firms just aren't hiring at anywhere near the numbers they used to. Many of those UT grads that would've gone to NYC or other markets in past years will have to go somewhere else now, and that somewhere else is probably looking closer to home where there are still jobs, such as Dallas.

I'm sure that there will still be some hiring from SMU done, but likely less and more toward the top of the class than before. That's the concern I think OP and anyone else considering SMU should be aware of, especially since SMU doesn't place well anywhere else. This is playing out across the country, and I don't see how it can't really be playing out in Texas too.

but couldn't this also be contributed to the deterioration of the economy overall?
this phenomenon you're describing probably and will continue to be the case for every law school in the country. i think any decrease in hiring would primarily be caused by the economy going to shit and only secondarily by texas grads displacing smu grads...after all, smu students have the advantage of being able to work and make connections in dallas year round, which probably works to compensate for any prestige advantage UT has over smu.

my overall sentiment is pretty conventional: desire for dallas + lower cost than UT due to scholly money = smu being the tcr.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby kalvano » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:12 am

My research is pretty current, and I live in Dallas, so I am pretty familiar with it.

Is the bottom of the class going to get work like they might have? No.

But understand that Texas doesn't work on logic. Just because something should be true, doesn't make it so. There are plenty of firms around that hire from SMU, not UT, becuase they by-God hire from SMU, dammit. You're talking generations of SMU grads around, and the "taking care of your own" mentality is huge to them. They see SMU as a better school than UT, and so they hire from there.

Not to mention the internships available to SMU students. If you want to do local public interest, work for the DA's office, anything like that, SMU is a much better bet.

I'm not saying everyone should pick SMU over UT. But I don't thnk the self-selection theory will hold as true as you think it will. Keep in mind that UT grads have options spread out over the country, not just NYC. Just because they don't go to NYC doesn't mean they will go to Dallas, where they will be on about equal footing with good SMU grads.

Esc
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby Esc » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:29 am

kurama20 wrote:I'm not sure exactly who said it, but just know that the nlj250 placement chart is an awful awful way to measure Texas firm placement. I seriously doubt that there are that many Texas firms on the nlj250--that chart is so NYC focused it isn't even funny. After that it's probably best for determining DC and Cali placement (even for those markets it's a bad proxy). However, for Texas it's pretty awful--firms like Susman Godfrey and Beck Redden will not pop up on the nlj250--I'm pretty sure that's a significant Texas firm. People put too much weight on the nlj250, it's best used for a NYC proxy.


vanwinkle is mostly right, except for the part about UT's class placement for Biglaw. Kurama is right about this - Texas has a ton of boutique and midsize firms paying market that are not represented in the NLJ numbers, and UT places a significant percentage of the class in those firms.

I will say, that as a UT 1L, one of the few things that I've been annoyed about is the CSO's lack of transparency (a phenomenon common to many schools) about placement statistics. It makes posts like this very hard to answer with any degree of certainty, because the only released numbers are so broad that they don't allow good determinations to be made.

My personal take is that yes, SMU is fine for Dallas, but I wouldn't go there without at least 1/2 tuition scholly, and I certainly wouldn't take SMU over UT unless SMU gave fully scholly and UT was sticker. ITE, superior, geographically dispersed placement is key.

User avatar
najumobi
Posts: 1111
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:36 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby najumobi » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:51 am

Esc wrote:vanwinkle is mostly right, except for the part about UT's class placement for Biglaw. Kurama is right about this - Texas has a ton of boutique and midsize firms paying market that are not represented in the NLJ numbers, and UT places a significant percentage of the class in those firms.

I will say, that as a UT 1L, one of the few things that I've been annoyed about is the CSO's lack of transparency (a phenomenon common to many schools) about placement statistics. It makes posts like this very hard to answer with any degree of certainty, because the only released numbers are so broad that they don't allow good determinations to be made.

My personal take is that yes, SMU is fine for Dallas, but I wouldn't go there without at least 1/2 tuition scholly, and I certainly wouldn't take SMU over UT unless SMU gave fully scholly and UT was sticker. ITE, superior, geographically dispersed placement is key.


i have been reading on here that vanderbilt is outperforming cornell in terms of 2L summer placement. is this what you mean by geographically dispersed placement being the key?

also is this a pretty transparent employment report by emory? http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/care ... f_2008.pdf

Esc
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby Esc » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:04 am

najumobi wrote:
Esc wrote:vanwinkle is mostly right, except for the part about UT's class placement for Biglaw. Kurama is right about this - Texas has a ton of boutique and midsize firms paying market that are not represented in the NLJ numbers, and UT places a significant percentage of the class in those firms.

I will say, that as a UT 1L, one of the few things that I've been annoyed about is the CSO's lack of transparency (a phenomenon common to many schools) about placement statistics. It makes posts like this very hard to answer with any degree of certainty, because the only released numbers are so broad that they don't allow good determinations to be made.

My personal take is that yes, SMU is fine for Dallas, but I wouldn't go there without at least 1/2 tuition scholly, and I certainly wouldn't take SMU over UT unless SMU gave fully scholly and UT was sticker. ITE, superior, geographically dispersed placement is key.


i have been reading on here that vanderbilt is outperforming cornell in terms of 2L summer placement. is this what you mean by geographically dispersed placement being the key?

also is this a pretty transparent employment report by emory? http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/care ... f_2008.pdf


I haven't heard about Vandy beating Cornell, but it wouldn't surprise me. I don't know anything about Cornell's placement, but it does have the reputation of a NYC feeder school that is hurting because of the NYC ITE market.

Vandy, on the other hand, places quite well in the south, in NYC and DC, in Chicago, and to a lesser extent on the west coast. Vandy is admirable because it is one of the few schools that has achieved ultimate transparency, by publicly releasing full individual employment data for EVERY graduate, ie each employer, expected salary, location, etc.

That Emory data is decent, and roughly equivalent to the data UT releases, but is nowhere near the transparency Vandy achieves.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby keg411 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:33 pm

Isn't "ITE" less striking for Texas as it is for everywhere else? Pretty much everything I've heard is that the Texas economy is hurting far, far less than everywhere else, but that could just be general rumors.

Esc
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby Esc » Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:34 pm

keg411 wrote:Isn't "ITE" less striking for Texas as it is for everywhere else? Pretty much everything I've heard is that the Texas economy is hurting far, far less than everywhere else, but that could just be general rumors.


While the Texas economy as a whole is hurting less, the legal sector is hurting similarly.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:12 pm

Something I've been keeping in mind but forgot to mention...

If you're in-state, the in-state tuition for UT is only like $25k/yr (unless this has radically changed in the last year). UT starts out cheaper than SMU right out of the gate, it's like getting a half-tuition scholarship at UT just for being in-state. This is one of the reasons I'd think someone was crazy for taking SMU over UT unless they had at least a full-tuition scholarship at SMU.

I don't know if this has changed or will change, though; schools all over are raising tuition, and UT probably isn't an exception. The UT System's endowment was really starting to hurt a couple years ago along with everyone else's.

Esc
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:09 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby Esc » Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:14 pm

vanwinkle wrote:Something I've been keeping in mind but forgot to mention...

If you're in-state, the in-state tuition for UT is only like $25k/yr (unless this has radically changed in the last year). UT starts out cheaper than SMU right out of the gate, it's like getting a half-tuition scholarship at UT just for being in-state. This is one of the reasons I'd think someone was crazy for taking SMU over UT unless they had at least a full-tuition scholarship at SMU.

I don't know if this has changed or will change, though; schools all over are raising tuition, and UT probably isn't an exception. The UT System's endowment was really starting to hurt a couple years ago along with everyone else's.


yeah, in-state tuition is rising, although it's still cheaper than most good schools. This years tuition is $27k/year, next year is going to be a couple thousand more than that.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: SMU v UT for Dallas

Postby keg411 » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:47 pm

Esc wrote:
keg411 wrote:Isn't "ITE" less striking for Texas as it is for everywhere else? Pretty much everything I've heard is that the Texas economy is hurting far, far less than everywhere else, but that could just be general rumors.


While the Texas economy as a whole is hurting less, the legal sector is hurting similarly.


Thanks for the info :).




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests