Before you flame me, this is just how I personally feel and wanted to here some thoughts from others.
Without looking at your previous posts I am nearly 100 percent sure that you are going to UVA (or if not, Michigan) since UVA posters on this site seem to be obsessed with putting NYU in the MVPB tier. For the life of me I have no idea why, but they start countless threads about it or post it in completely unrelated threads. All such posters seem to ignore V100 placement, NLJ250 placement, Leiter's elite firm index, hiring rates for median students (i.e. how far into the class biglaw firms go), etc.
V100 summer associate placement (2006):
http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html
V100 placement divided by percentage of students working in firms (as of 2008): (does not include HYS)
Leiter's elite firm placement rankings (also as of 2008):
Now all of these factors may have a big city bias, but that hardly seems to prevent schools like Duke from doing comparatively better than UVA or Michigan in these measures. Not to mention that a good chunk of the 15 firms Leiter refers to are either headquartered or have offices in Washington DC (UVa's area of strength) and UVA places the worst out of any T14 besides Berkeley in these elite firms.
Instead, pro-UVA posters focus on lawyer/judge scores (while conveniently leaving out the peer rep scores) and how UVA has historically had a marginally better or equal score to NYU. Now I'm not dismissing that metric and perhaps it can be used to point out why UVA grads get great clerkships. However, if that metric really demonstrated how the legal community viewed UVA then why is that NYU grads get hired at better firms and at a higher rate in biglaw? If it is just because NYU is in New York, then how do you explain Duke's numbers? As for how national the schools are, these are the top schools - placement nationally shouldn't be a problem given some connection or demonstrated interest in a region. I know for a fact that Columbia, NYU, and Chicago all place very well in California (I won't speak for Virginia here because I have no idea how its placement is on the west coast although I assume it is still pretty strong). As for how the schools are doing in the economy...according to posters on this site and 2 students that I know at NYU Law, students at and even below median are still landing V100 gigs (although with less callbacks than normal). Again, I can't speak for UVA here but students at CCN seem to be doing well considering how the economy is going.
Let me be perfectly clear here though...I don't think that the differences between the schools are that great and frankly this whole tier system probably creates arbitrary distinctions between what are essentially 14 damn good law schools. But if you insist on referring to tiers within the top 14 schools, evidence seems to show that there is more separating NYU from UVA than there is between UVA and Northwestern/Duke.
You seem to be almost totally ignoring non NYC placement in your attempt to say that NYU is a stronger school than Michigan, UVA, and Boalt. All of those placement studies you linked to are heavily NYC biased (not big city biased as you tried to pass off). When you start looking at NYU's placement into California, DC (and by the way you are incorrect about those studies focusing on elite DC firms, they don't. Those studies almost completely ignore highly elite and selective DC firms like Kellog Huber) Chicago, Texas, and the south NYU either loses out to or does comparably to MBVP. NYU completely loses out to Columbia and Chicago in non NYC markets. NYU grads actually aren't getting hired at better firms at a higher rate either, as you claim, they are getting hired at a higher rate at--gasp-- NYC firms. You are placing a heavy emphasis on the firms that are ranked highest by Vault, which are overwhelmingly in NYC, that's why you are seeing NYU looking so good.
Hell when you look at the "V10" Stanford doesn't do too well, but I hope you wouldn't say that NYU out places Stanford. When you look at super elite firms outside of NYC ( and just so you know when you look at how much bigger NYU is than all of MBVP and the fact that NYU students are obviously highly likely to choose NYC the only V10 firms that NYU really seems to murder MBVP at are Wachtell and Cravath. Simpson Thatcher, Sullivan, Davis Polk etc. all hire from MBVP in droves. If you look at the non NYC V10 firms NYU actually does either the same or worse than MBVP (Covington DC and Kirkland Chicago).
In terms of explaining Duke's high placement into "better"firms (which you call the V10 and V100, which is really kind of false, because the hyper elite firms are often not in the V10 like Susman Godfrey, Keker, Irell, Williams and Connolly, Kellog Huber, Barlitt Beck, Boies, etc. which are all more selective than any V10 except Wachtell and Cravath) it's pretty simple. The schools where most students want to work in NYC are going to have the "best" placement by your measure because what you are using as the "best" firms are the V10 which are mostly NYC firms. Duke, Penn, NYU and even Cornell actually all beat out schools like Stanford by a good amount because the people who go to those schools overwhelmingly go for NYC jobs. The Stanford people are going for Munger which isn't in the V10 but is much more selective than say Davis Polk, which is V10 and will have way more NYU students going for it, boosting their V10 numbers and making their placement look "better" than Stanford's on the leiter rankings and the NLJ 250.
Look at how NYU does at those hyper elite firms I mentioned that are not in NYC, you will see that it gets measurably outdone by Columbia and Chicago and that it aligns perfectly with MBVP. Furthermore, outside of Wachtell and Cravath MBVP all do very closely (really the same when you look at class size and the fact that people there don't go for NYC like NYU people do) and you will see why NYU really isn't any different from MBVP.
As far as NYU students doing better than MBVP ones ITE generally, there is a very obvious explanation for that. Most NYU students are trying to get a job in the easiest market to land one, from a school located in that market. It's really no wonder that most of them are able to get "V100" jobs compared to MBVP students. For example many people at UVA are probably gunning for DC, a much more selective market than NYC and one that has a lot less V100 jobs (making matters worse, many of DC's most desirable firms--like Kellogg Huber-- are not even in the V100 even though they are super selective).
It only makes sense that if you have a school where half of the class is aiming for large firms that are easier to get hired by like Milibank Tweed and even Davis Polk, and you have another school where half of the class wants to work at say Covington DC or Williams and Connolly, the former are going to come out better. You can see the same thing with a school lilke Boalt where people are probably going for firms like Keker, Gibson, Mofo, and Munger in a market that has been hit very hard and was always a lot more selective than NYC to begin with. Boalt students are not going to have the success rate at those firms that NYU students are going to have at Debevoise and Davis Polk because those firms are more selective and smaller.
When you look at things like clerkships and non NYC placement NYU doesn't place "better" than MBVP, but when you ignore those things and use NYC placement NYU starts looking like it's in a whole other league than MBVP. I'm sure if you ignored NYC placement, and focused heavily on California placement Boalt would start looking like it was in another league from NYU and be a "top 5".