T14 for West Coast (LA) Forum

[RVP11]

the reality is, out side of HYS, the t14 is mostly regional. Most kids from chicago/NU work in chicago, UVA in DC, and so on and so forth.

Though the rest of your post made some sense, this part of it was completely wrong.

[NayBoer]

the reality is, out side of HYS, the t14 is mostly regional. Most kids from chicago/NU work in chicago, UVA in DC, and so on and so forth.

Though the rest of your post made some sense, this part of it was completely wrong.

For example, I'm pretty sure the primary jurisdiction for UVA is NY, not DC.

[kurama20]

the reality is, out side of HYS, the t14 is mostly regional. Most kids from chicago/NU work in chicago, UVA in DC, and so on and so forth.

Though the rest of your post made some sense, this part of it was completely wrong.

For example, I'm pretty sure the primary jurisdiction for UVA is NY, not DC.

If you mean bar passage rate wise then yes, but most of UVA"s class targets DC and that's where most of their grads end up if you look at the stats on the website (though not by much). http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/about/ ... htm#career

[TheWire]

So, does anyone have any good ideas as to how we can get to the bottom of this, specifically:

Boalt vs Columbia & Chicago
UCLA/USC vs MVP/DN/CG

Light NYU trollin'

[postitnotes]

Haha gotcha. Nice back and forth we had there, though.

Anyway I'm heading to bed -- maybe this thread will get back on topic tomorrow (although I sincerely doubt it). Nite crack.

Haha, later man. I hope to call it a night soon as well. Anyway, in a vain attempt to direct this thread back to its original intent, I offer my thoughts on LA BigLaw placement:

HYS
Boalt
UCLA/USC
Michigan
(Irrelevant)

Blatant Michigan trolling? Maybe, but I know UM grads do very well in California.

With the exception of HYS because duh, this is probably accurate if you base the rankings off solely the number of California firms at OCI. As of now, California is a more popular destination for Mich grads than DC. (New York and Chicago are 1 and 2.)

In terms of how deep firms dig into schools, it is impossible to say and nobody on TLS would know unless they were a hiring partner. I suspect that Columbia gets more "prestige" and "respect" in California than Berkeley, but this is just supposition based off my experiences living there. A Columbia degree is rarer and people know it's a "high Ivy." I worked for an attorney a couple years back in California who went to Berkeley, but for some reason she would always want to interject that she had "turned down Columbia" multiple times because Berkeley, at that time, was cheaper. She had a big chip on her shoulder about turning down CLS.

[crackberry]

With the exception of HYS because duh, this is probably accurate if you base the rankings off solely the number of California firms at OCI. As of now, California is a more popular destination for Mich grads than DC. (New York and Chicago are 1 and 2.)

In terms of how deep firms dig into schools, it is impossible to say and nobody on TLS would know unless they were a hiring partner. I suspect that Columbia gets more "prestige" and "respect" in California than Berkeley, but this is just supposition based off my experiences living there. A Columbia degree is rarer and people know it's a "high Ivy." I worked for an attorney a couple years back in California who went to Berkeley, but for some reason she would always want to interject that she had "turned down Columbia" multiple times because Berkeley, at that time, was cheaper. She had a big chip on her shoulder about turning down CLS.

Yeah I just think that [earmuffs, kurama] CLS grads tend to self-select to NYC. Why go to Columbia instead of Boalt if you want to work in California?

[RVP11]

I think anyone who goes to any other T14 if they've gotten into Boalt, or any other T3 if they've gotten into Stanford, is certifiably insane.

[crackberry]

I think anyone who goes to any other T14 if they've gotten into Boalt, or any other T3 if they've gotten into Stanford, is certifiably insane.

In general or for LA/Calif?

[RVP11]

I think anyone who goes to any other T14 if they've gotten into Boalt, or any other T3 if they've gotten into Stanford, is certifiably insane.

In general or for LA/Calif?

In general.

I love UVA. But it doesn't compare to being able to study law in NorCal.

[crackberry]

I think anyone who goes to any other T14 if they've gotten into Boalt, or any other T3 if they've gotten into Stanford, is certifiably insane.

In general or for LA/Calif?

In general.

I love UVA. But it doesn't compare to being able to study law in NorCal.

Wow, well I'm actually with you on this (excepting Yale), but I don't think it would be a popular opinion on TLS.

[studylaw7]

I think anyone who goes to any other T14 if they've gotten into Boalt, or any other T3 if they've gotten into Stanford, is certifiably insane.

In general or for LA/Calif?

In general.

I love UVA. But it doesn't compare to being able to study law in NorCal.

your statement is much too strong in my opinion. Within California it would probably be foolish to pick any other T14, except for maybe Columbia. Anywhere outside of California, going to a school other than Berkeley is completely reasonable.

Argument is similar for the T3. If you're going to work in California for the rest of your life, Stanford is the correct choice. Otherwise, Harvard and Yale are obviously reasonable, and perhaps much better, choices.

[Tangerine Gleam]

Hmmm...perhaps this calls for a "T14 for NorCal" thread! It would look slightly different than for L.A., methinks.

[los blancos]

I think anyone who goes to any other T14 if they've gotten into Boalt, or any other T3 if they've gotten into Stanford, is certifiably insane.

Agree. That is why my preference list is what it is.

[kurama20]

With the exception of HYS because duh, this is probably accurate if you base the rankings off solely the number of California firms at OCI. As of now, California is a more popular destination for Mich grads than DC. (New York and Chicago are 1 and 2.)

In terms of how deep firms dig into schools, it is impossible to say and nobody on TLS would know unless they were a hiring partner. I suspect that Columbia gets more "prestige" and "respect" in California than Berkeley, but this is just supposition based off my experiences living there. A Columbia degree is rarer and people know it's a "high Ivy." I worked for an attorney a couple years back in California who went to Berkeley, but for some reason she would always want to interject that she had "turned down Columbia" multiple times because Berkeley, at that time, was cheaper. She had a big chip on her shoulder about turning down CLS.

Yeah I just think that [earmuffs, kurama] CLS grads tend to self-select to NYC. Why go to Columbia instead of Boalt if you want to work in California?

What are you talking about that's exactly what I was saying, CLS is just as good for Cali as Boalt is (I think you missed when I said this but there are a couple of missquotes of me in this thread. One of the posters messed up his quoting attempts). You can actually see it in the top Cali firms, you don't even need to use the self selection thing. Just look at Cali powerhouses like Irell and Gibson Dunn.

[crackberry]

What are you talking about that's exactly what I was saying, CLS is just as good for Cali as Boalt is (I think you missed when I said this but there are a couple of missquotes of me in this thread. One of the posters messed up his quoting attempts). You can actually see it in the top Cali firms, you don't even need to use the self selection thing. Just look at Cali powerhouses like Irell and Gibson Dunn.

I said "earmuffs" because I was about to pull out the "self-selection" ammo and I know what you think of that.

[kurama20]

What are you talking about that's exactly what I was saying, CLS is just as good for Cali as Boalt is (I think you missed when I said this but there are a couple of missquotes of me in this thread. One of the posters messed up his quoting attempts). You can actually see it in the top Cali firms, you don't even need to use the self selection thing. Just look at Cali powerhouses like Irell and Gibson Dunn.

I said "earmuffs" because I was about to pull out the "self-selection" ammo and I know what you think of that.

It's not that I disagree with self selection, it's just that it is a very questionable hypothesis most of the time. There are situations where it can be seen and can even be proven (like what I was talking about when it comes to UChicago vs. NYU in NYC or Stanford vs. Columbia in NYC). But there are other times when people like to use it as a get out of jail free card to explain poor placement by a school they are fond of. But then there are instances where it doesn't work (like trying to explain Yale and Harvard's mind blowing gap on Stanford in SCOTUS clerkship and Justice production entirely through self selection).

[crackberry]

It's not that I disagree with self selection, it's just that it is a very questionable hypothesis most of the time. There are situations where it can be seen and can even be proven (like what I was talking about when it comes to UChicago vs. NYU in NYC or Stanford vs. Columbia in NYC). But there are other times when people like to use it as a get out of jail free card to explain poor placement by a school they are fond of. But then there are instances where it doesn't work (like trying to explain Yale and Harvard's mind blowing gap on Stanford in SCOTUS clerkship and Justice production entirely through self selection).

I don't think we really want to get into this again, but while I grant you that Yale has a "mindblowing" lead on everyone when it comes to SCOTUS clerkships, it is totally disingenuous to claim the same for Harvard. When adjusted for class size, Harvard, Chicago and Stanford are basically tied - all WAY behind Yale and WAY ahead of Columbia, et al.

[kurama20]

It's not that I disagree with self selection, it's just that it is a very questionable hypothesis most of the time. There are situations where it can be seen and can even be proven (like what I was talking about when it comes to UChicago vs. NYU in NYC or Stanford vs. Columbia in NYC). But there are other times when people like to use it as a get out of jail free card to explain poor placement by a school they are fond of. But then there are instances where it doesn't work (like trying to explain Yale and Harvard's mind blowing gap on Stanford in SCOTUS clerkship and Justice production entirely through self selection).

I don't think we really want to get into this again, but while I grant you that Yale has a "mindblowing" lead on everyone when it comes to SCOTUS clerkships, it is totally disingenuous to claim the same for Harvard. When adjusted for class size, Harvard, Chicago and Stanford are basically tied - all WAY behind Yale and WAY ahead of Columbia, et al.

For COA you're right, but not for SCOTUS and definitely not when you look at the justices. It's just too much of a gap for self selection to explain all of it. Besides who the hell "self selects" out of a SCOTUS clerkship or SCOTUS nomination if they can get one? That's what I'm talking about, people start going too far with the self selection stuff.

[crackberry]

For COA you're right, but not for SCOTUS and definitely not when you look at the justices. It's just too much of a gap for self selection to explain all of it. Besides who the hell "self selects" out of a SCOTUS clerkship or SCOTUS nomination if they can get one? That's what I'm talking about, people start going too far with the self selection stuff.

I wasn't using self-selection to explain that. Of course you don't self-select out of SCOTUS. My point about self-selection was Boalt v. CLS in California.

Wait are we talking about clerkships or actual judgeships now? For SCOTUS clerkships, HLS, Chicago and Stanford are tied in the last 10-15 years when adjusted for class size. For SCOTUS seats, that's a whole different ballgame.

[kurama20]

For COA you're right, but not for SCOTUS and definitely not when you look at the justices. It's just too much of a gap for self selection to explain all of it. Besides who the hell "self selects" out of a SCOTUS clerkship or SCOTUS nomination if they can get one? That's what I'm talking about, people start going too far with the self selection stuff.

I wasn't using self-selection to explain that. Of course you don't self-select out of SCOTUS. My point about self-selection was Boalt v. CLS in California.

Wait are we talking about clerkships or actual judgeships now? For SCOTUS clerkships, HLS, Chicago and Stanford are tied in the last 10-15 years when adjusted for class size. For SCOTUS seats, that's a whole different ballgame.

I was talking both. And no, even when adjusting for class size Stanford is behind those other schools, as Leiter's study shows.


http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2000 ... erks.shtml

[crackberry]

I was talking both. And no, even when adjusting for class size Stanford is behind those other schools, as Leiter's study shows.

http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2000 ... erks.shtml

Yeah dude but come on, seriously. Look at the fourth column, which is the important one:

Yale - .33

Chicago - .16
Harvard - .15
Stanford - .13

Columbia - .05

Are you really going to tell me HLS, Chicago and Stanford aren't basically tied? And that they aren't all WAY behind Yale and WAY ahead of Columbia, et al., which was my original claim?

I think your reference to "Harvard's mind blowing gap on Stanford in SCOTUS clerkships" was a bit overblown. I wouldn't call 0.02 "mindblowing" by any stretch of the imagination.

[BioEBear2010]

Not that it really matters (the relative ratios will be the same), but why is the ratio equal to total # of clerks from 2000-2008 : Average class size? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the average number of SCOTUS clerks per class?

[crackberry]

Not that it really matters (the relative ratios will be the same), but why is the ratio equal to total # of clerks from 2000-2008 : Average class size? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the average number of SCOTUS clerks per class?

But that skews the numbers in favor of the bigger schools. More students = more SCOTUS clerks but not necessarily better odds of obtaining a SCOTUS clerkship.

[BioEBear2010]

Not that it really matters (the relative ratios will be the same), but why is the ratio equal to total # of clerks from 2000-2008 : Average class size? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the average number of SCOTUS clerks per class?

But that skews the numbers in favor of the bigger schools. More students = more SCOTUS clerks but not necessarily better odds of obtaining a SCOTUS clerkship.

Whoops, I didn't mean average # of SCOTUS per class -- I meant the average # of SCOTUS clerks per class divided by average class size. I just think that it's kinda weird to have the ratio be the total # of clerks from 2000-2008 : average class size for ONE year.

[crackberry]

Not that it really matters (the relative ratios will be the same), but why is the ratio equal to total # of clerks from 2000-2008 : Average class size? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the average number of SCOTUS clerks per class?

But that skews the numbers in favor of the bigger schools. More students = more SCOTUS clerks but not necessarily better odds of obtaining a SCOTUS clerkship.

Whoops, I didn't mean average # of SCOTUS per class -- I meant the average # of SCOTUS clerks per class divided by average class size. I just think that it's kinda weird to have the ratio be the total # of clerks from 2000-2008 : average class size for ONE year.

Maybe because class size at each school stays relatively constant and taking a one year sample for # of SCOTUS clerks is too small a sample size. This way you get nine years of data for the price of one.