HYSCCN

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
showNprove
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: HYSCCN

Postby showNprove » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:49 pm

.
Last edited by showNprove on Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

studylaw7
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:14 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby studylaw7 » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:49 pm

mallard wrote:
showNprove wrote:
mallard wrote:showNprove, I'm not really sure what you're saying. Placement statistics are also measures of people established in the legal community (i.e., those who do the hiring). Since those are the people who actually affect students' futures, why would you prefer the opinion scores?

Excuse me, I was confused. I thought by "statistics," people were referring to incoming class statistics in response to the data I had posted on them.

Placement statistics are certainly to be considered closely, but they again have other factors to consider. The size of the class has a tremendous impact on placement, as does the self-selection of the graduates themselves. I'm not saying placement is not a good indicator--in fact, it's a very good indicator--by IMO, placement is a derivative of popular (prestige) opinion of the professionals that is confounded with other variables. Why not get straight to the point and look directly at the opinions themselves?


I'm just not sure why prestige is "straight to the point" and placement isn't...

and lol at studylaw, attacking people on all the wrong points. Man, you've been here for less than a week, you don't need to try to do this. Just stick around and read posts, get informed, be friendly.


I'm not any more unfriendly than you or dresden doll are to me. Let's be serious...

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby dresden doll » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:51 pm

studylaw7 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
studylaw7 wrote:
I wonder, do any of these people who supposedly know you think that you're a b*tch?


I assure you that my heart won't be broken as a result.


Well, that's just because you're a b*tch who doesn't care about them! LMAO!

I still think you have some kind of ulterior motive in defending MVPB so strongly when you supposedly go to Chicago.


If you think that merely saying that CCN isn't significanly better than MPBV constitutes a strong defense, you've clearly not really witnessed too many strong schools-related defenses around here.

studylaw7
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:14 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby studylaw7 » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:52 pm

studylaw7 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
studylaw7 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:tell me, genius, how might I verify it without knowing you personally?

Your response to my post, saying that "I'll be damned" if CCN is better than MVPB does not suggest to me that you go to CCN. I have a hard time seeing how you would use such language to defend MVPB. and don't tell me your spouse goes there, either.

PWNED.


Perhaps you could enlighten me, genius, as to what point there is in making a statement that you freely admit you have no way of verifying.

And, FYI - not everyone around here trolls hardcore for their school. Some of us maintain a modicum of objectivity. Htfh.

Also, my SO is an engineer.

As for your sad attempt at claiming 'victory,' it only serves to bolster my prediction that you won't be going near CCN personally. So, yeah, you truly do not have any way of verifying that I attend Chicago because Chicago won't be admitting idiots (and neither will MPBV, for that matter).


I think you're the fool. You don't know anything about my background, though if you looked at my posts, you would see that I'm going to a T14 school in the fall, though it is below your supposed top 6 school. Unless you got an LSAT score that is a 178, 179, or 180, I own you on the LSAT.


And why should I believe that? Just because you say so? See, it goes both ways.


yes, that's correct. It does go both ways.

studylaw7
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:14 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby studylaw7 » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:53 pm

dresden doll wrote:
studylaw7 wrote:
dresden doll wrote:
studylaw7 wrote:
I wonder, do any of these people who supposedly know you think that you're a b*tch?


I assure you that my heart won't be broken as a result.


Well, that's just because you're a b*tch who doesn't care about them! LMAO!

I still think you have some kind of ulterior motive in defending MVPB so strongly when you supposedly go to Chicago.


If you think that merely saying that CCN isn't significanly better than MPBV constitutes a strong defense, you've clearly not really witnessed too many strong schools-related defenses around here.


Are you that dense? I specifically pointed out your usage of "I'll be damned".

User avatar
Nom Sawyer
Posts: 933
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby Nom Sawyer » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:54 pm

mallard wrote:
maudlinstreet wrote:man you guys are getting trolled hardcore by studylaw!


I don't think so.

As for the resuscitated Renzo/kurama argument, I think kurama actually has a good point regarding boutiques. Renzo keeps saying "good luck trying to get those jobs" at Susman, Bartlit Beck, etc., but the fact is that tiered school prestige (which is the point of this thread, right?) has actually a significant role in one's ability to get those elite jobs. So it's actually not off-topic if we're talking about placement stats. Nor is it statistically unimportant given the small size of Yale, Stanford, and Chicago: I'm pretty sure a significant number of people at YS who go to private firms end up at tiny, top-level boutiques.


Heh, I kind of agree with you on this point (middle ground b/w Kurama's view and Renzo).

But I just quoted that post to show some pretty epic fail on Kurama's part... the point by point blows were hilarious.
And to keep this thread going for my own amusement :lol:

User avatar
mallard
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby mallard » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:54 pm

Veyron, sorry, it took me awhile to find this. I got a bit defensive in that thread, so spend more time reading other people's posts than mine (apart from the actual rankings posted).

showNprove, that's a fair point, and is often made with regard to Harvard's size. Large classes have their benefits as well, particularly with regard to fundraising and development. Still, I'm not entirely sure that I trust the opinion scores. People involved in hiring are likely to know more about the contemporary status of schools than people who aren't. The common criticism of the opinion scores is that they lag behind actual school quality due to views left over from when the people surveyed attended law school.

User avatar
badfish
Posts: 1160
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: HYSCCN

Postby badfish » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:55 pm

Can we stop feeding the troll? I haven't banned anyone in months, but I'm [----] far away from banning him.

Also, I can speak for the website when I say, Dresden does indeed go to U of C.

studylaw7
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:14 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby studylaw7 » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:56 pm

mallard wrote:
showNprove wrote:
mallard wrote:showNprove, I'm not really sure what you're saying. Placement statistics are also measures of people established in the legal community (i.e., those who do the hiring). Since those are the people who actually affect students' futures, why would you prefer the opinion scores?

Excuse me, I was confused. I thought by "statistics," people were referring to incoming class statistics in response to the data I had posted on them.

Placement statistics are certainly to be considered closely, but they again have other factors to consider. The size of the class has a tremendous impact on placement, as does the self-selection of the graduates themselves. I'm not saying placement is not a good indicator--in fact, it's a very good indicator--by IMO, placement is a derivative of popular (prestige) opinion of the professionals that is confounded with other variables. Why not get straight to the point and look directly at the opinions themselves?


I'm just not sure why prestige is "straight to the point" and placement isn't...

and lol at studylaw, attacking people on all the wrong points. Man, you've been here for less than a week, you don't need to try to do this. Just stick around and read posts, get informed, be friendly.



Law school IQ is not proportional to how long you have been a part of this board, which is what your post above is suggesting.

User avatar
of Benito Cereno
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:40 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby of Benito Cereno » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:57 pm

What. The. Hell. Is. Going. On. Here? Seriously? What the hell.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby dresden doll » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:57 pm

badfish wrote:Can we stop feeding the troll? I haven't banned anyone in months, but I'm [----] far away from banning him.

Also, I can speak for the website when I say, Dresden does indeed go to U of C.


I like it when badfish drops the banhammer.

User avatar
dresden doll
Posts: 6802
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:11 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby dresden doll » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:58 pm

studylaw7 wrote:
mallard wrote:
showNprove wrote:
mallard wrote:showNprove, I'm not really sure what you're saying. Placement statistics are also measures of people established in the legal community (i.e., those who do the hiring). Since those are the people who actually affect students' futures, why would you prefer the opinion scores?

Excuse me, I was confused. I thought by "statistics," people were referring to incoming class statistics in response to the data I had posted on them.

Placement statistics are certainly to be considered closely, but they again have other factors to consider. The size of the class has a tremendous impact on placement, as does the self-selection of the graduates themselves. I'm not saying placement is not a good indicator--in fact, it's a very good indicator--by IMO, placement is a derivative of popular (prestige) opinion of the professionals that is confounded with other variables. Why not get straight to the point and look directly at the opinions themselves?


I'm just not sure why prestige is "straight to the point" and placement isn't...

and lol at studylaw, attacking people on all the wrong points. Man, you've been here for less than a week, you don't need to try to do this. Just stick around and read posts, get informed, be friendly.


I'm not any more unfriendly than you or dresden doll are to me. Let's be serious...


Except that - let's be serious - you kinda started up the animosity.

studylaw7
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:14 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby studylaw7 » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:58 pm

badfish wrote:Can we stop feeding the troll? I haven't banned anyone in months, but I'm [----] far away from banning him.

Also, I can speak for the website when I say, Dresden does indeed go to U of C.


Of course you shouldn't ban me. That'd be ridiculous and not to mention COMMUNIST. For goodness sake people, this is just a law school forum!!

User avatar
EijiMiyake
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: HYSCCN

Postby EijiMiyake » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:59 pm

mallard wrote:
maudlinstreet wrote:man you guys are getting trolled hardcore by studylaw!


I don't think so.

As for the resuscitated Renzo/kurama argument, I think kurama actually has a good point regarding boutiques. Renzo keeps saying "good luck trying to get those jobs" at Susman, Bartlit Beck, etc., but the fact is that tiered school prestige (which is the point of this thread, right?) has actually a significant role in one's ability to get those elite jobs. So it's actually not off-topic if we're talking about placement stats. Nor is it statistically unimportant given the small size of Yale, Stanford, and Chicago: I'm pretty sure a significant number of people at YS who go to private firms end up at tiny, top-level boutiques.



Mallard, do you mean that this is more true of YS than of H?

User avatar
badfish
Posts: 1160
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: HYSCCN

Postby badfish » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:00 pm

studylaw7 wrote:
badfish wrote:Can we stop feeding the troll? I haven't banned anyone in months, but I'm [----] far away from banning him.

Also, I can speak for the website when I say, Dresden does indeed go to U of C.


Of course you shouldn't ban me. That'd be ridiculous and not to mention COMMUNIST. For goodness sake people, this is just a law school forum!!


Communist? Now you're insulting my dignity.

Seriously, none of this is important. I'm going to read con law. Be good kids. I'll be checking up on you after the gym.

User avatar
mallard
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby mallard » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:01 pm

EijiMiyake wrote:
mallard wrote:
maudlinstreet wrote:man you guys are getting trolled hardcore by studylaw!


I don't think so.

As for the resuscitated Renzo/kurama argument, I think kurama actually has a good point regarding boutiques. Renzo keeps saying "good luck trying to get those jobs" at Susman, Bartlit Beck, etc., but the fact is that tiered school prestige (which is the point of this thread, right?) has actually a significant role in one's ability to get those elite jobs. So it's actually not off-topic if we're talking about placement stats. Nor is it statistically unimportant given the small size of Yale, Stanford, and Chicago: I'm pretty sure a significant number of people at YS who go to private firms end up at tiny, top-level boutiques.



Mallard, do you mean that this is more true of YS than of H?


Yes, I'm almost certain of that.

User avatar
of Benito Cereno
Posts: 748
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:40 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby of Benito Cereno » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:01 pm

Apparently Martin Luther King Jr. was born so that someday there could be a federal holiday on the anniversary of his birth thus making possible ridiculous threads like this. This is what happens when people have no jobs or classes to go to. The sleep of admissions offices produces monsters.

User avatar
Nom Sawyer
Posts: 933
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby Nom Sawyer » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:02 pm

mallard wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:
mallard wrote:
maudlinstreet wrote:man you guys are getting trolled hardcore by studylaw!


I don't think so.

As for the resuscitated Renzo/kurama argument, I think kurama actually has a good point regarding boutiques. Renzo keeps saying "good luck trying to get those jobs" at Susman, Bartlit Beck, etc., but the fact is that tiered school prestige (which is the point of this thread, right?) has actually a significant role in one's ability to get those elite jobs. So it's actually not off-topic if we're talking about placement stats. Nor is it statistically unimportant given the small size of Yale, Stanford, and Chicago: I'm pretty sure a significant number of people at YS who go to private firms end up at tiny, top-level boutiques.



Mallard, do you mean that this is more true of YS than of H?


Yes, I'm almost certain of that.


Significant in the statistical sense right? (As due to the class sizes of YS versus H)

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby YCrevolution » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:02 pm

..

studylaw7
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:14 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby studylaw7 » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:02 pm

studylaw7 wrote:
mallard wrote:
showNprove wrote:
mallard wrote:Excuse me, I was confused. I thought by "statistics," people were referring to incoming class statistics in response to the data I had posted on them.

Placement statistics are certainly to be considered closely, but they again have other factors to consider. The size of the class has a tremendous impact on placement, as does the self-selection of the graduates themselves. I'm not saying placement is not a good indicator--in fact, it's a very good indicator--by IMO, placement is a derivative of popular (prestige) opinion of the professionals that is confounded with other variables. Why not get straight to the point and look directly at the opinions themselves?


I'm just not sure why prestige is "straight to the point" and placement isn't...

and lol at studylaw, attacking people on all the wrong points. Man, you've been here for less than a week, you don't need to try to do this. Just stick around and read posts, get informed, be friendly.


I'm not any more unfriendly than you or dresden doll are to me. Let's be serious...


Except that - let's be serious - you kinda started up the animosity.



uh, fella, that's not true. I suggested that Dresden went to a school 7-10 school and put a pleasant smiley face next to it. Dresden comes back and ridicules my reading abilities. That's when it all started. Let's be serious.

User avatar
doyleoil
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: HYSCCN

Postby doyleoil » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:03 pm

mallard wrote:
Yes, I'm almost certain of that.


i think we need a new placement study

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby Renzo » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:03 pm

Veyron wrote:That Kurama fellow sounds kinda dumb. However, this thread has led to an interesting discussion over what qualifies as biglaw. This has actually created problems for me as I keep asking people about NYU's placement in west coast Biglaw. People think that I am referring exclusively to CA but I am actually more interested in Mountain West placement stats. I don't really know how to phrase the question. If I ask, "what are the employment prospects out of CCN for Mountain West Biglaw" people get confused. There is all of 1 firm in Phoenix that pays 160k and it has all of 8 people working at it. Than again, there are lots of firms paying 90k that qualify as Midlaw, and I don't want people to get confused and think I am talking about them. I think biglaw definitions have to be regional. In AZ, any firm (NJL 250 or not) that pays 125 or so is considered to be biglaw. In nyc, I imagine that 145 doesn't make you biglaw, and that if you are a small firm paying 160k, you are considered to be a "boutique" (which very well may be equally or more prestigious than BIGLAW). Hence biglaw in NYC/Chi/DC/LA would have to be a large firm paying 160k.

edit: Renzo, you have any idea about where I would have to be in NYU's class to get Mountain West BIGLAW according to my definition (assuming solid ties)?


I'm from the same region, and I don't think you'll have any problem going back. I went to a mid-size (but one of city's biggest) firm's cocktail reception when I was back home, and it seemed like they would love to have top school grads, but were nervous that they would bolt to a bigger market as soon as they got the chance. As long as you can convince them otherwise I think you'll do fine in any of those markets. All firms want to feel certain that you'll be there for a while before they'll hire you.

The whole biglaw/midlaw thing isn't really that important (my issue is with Kurama's bad argumentation and tactics, regardless of the topic). It's a shorthand label, and if it causes confusion no one has to use it. Generally, people mean "big" firms by absolute standards when the talk about "biglaw" (death of Biglaw, biglaw market rate, biglaw bonus comparisons, etc). Since the biggest firms in absolute terms are in Chicago, NYC, DC, and CA, talk about "biglaw" focuses on those places. This doesn't mean that the only good jobs are in "biglaw," or that those places are better, only that big cities with lots of work for lawyers have big firms.

User avatar
EijiMiyake
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: HYSCCN

Postby EijiMiyake » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:03 pm

mallard wrote:
Yes, I'm almost certain of that.


Also, why do you think that YS would have placement advantages in those firms?

User avatar
Nom Sawyer
Posts: 933
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby Nom Sawyer » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:04 pm

YCrevolution wrote:
studylaw7 wrote:I think you're the fool. You don't know anything about my background, though if you looked at my posts, you would see that I'm going to a T14 school in the fall, though it is below your supposed top 6 school. Unless you got an LSAT score that is a 178, 179, or 180, I own you on the LSAT.

I don't know much about your background, but I do know one thing about your future: say hello to banhammer!


--ImageRemoved--

=

--ImageRemoved--

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

User avatar
mallard
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:45 am

Re: HYSCCN

Postby mallard » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:09 pm

EijiMiyake wrote:
mallard wrote:
Yes, I'm almost certain of that.


Also, why do you think that YS would have placement advantages in those firms?


Practice areas, self-selection, California bias, supply and demand with regard to school size, etc.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests