Veyron wrote:Reading comp fail? I said was almost as good as Michigan for Chicago but better in terms of gainful employment overall. Don't just spam me with #s bro, apply law to facts.
Reading comp? Are you kidding? Both points 1 (Penn is better for overall gainful employment) and 2 (Penn is almost comparable to Michigan for Chicago) directly addressed that. I mean, I get that you're excited to have taken your 1L exams and recite cool little tips you've heard to sound like a big awesome law student on these boards, but I keep getting the feeling you're in over your head here.
rayiner wrote:The self-selection argument is a poor one. NYC firms at Michigan OCI aren't suddenly going to start taking twice as many students as they usually do just because students are shut out of the usual "more difficult and desirable" markets. Firms by and large go into T14s with some expectation that they'll be calling back X number of people and offering X' number of people. That's why it helps to have big pipelines into firms with big classes.
Think of it from the perspective of someone who just wants a biglaw job out of OCI. What is the credited OCI strategy? Bidding up and down NYC on firms with big summer classes. Everyone I know that did something different had trouble, while even below-median people by and large were okay if they bid NYC. If that's your OCI strategy, what do you want in a school? A ton of NYC interview slots, and a ton of callback slots at those big NYC firms. Penn had a ridiculous number of interview slots at places like Debevoise, DPW, Paul Weiss, etc, firms which are still taking 50+ SAs. Each bid on one of those firms is high-yield, putting you in play for a large number of openings. Meanwhile, bidding on a firm like Foley that might have a half a dozen summers firmwide is very risky - even if they are less grade sensitive, they are just plain oversubscribed. One mistake during an interview or callback (eg: not being enthusiastic enough about the chosen market) might sink you.
Call it hearsay and anecdote if you want, but that's the best anyone really has to go on right now and having gunned OCI myself, and knowing people who did at the various schools, I have formed a firm conclusion that Penn students were in a good position this year.
First, you're not the only one who has gunned OCI on these boards. As a Michigan student who has also gunned OCI and was offered in several markets (including both SF and NYC), I'm in at least as good of a position to answer this as you are. For the record, students were bidding NYC V10s between slots 25-30 as backups and getting almost all of them. Most still had open signups that morning to get extra interview slots, since they had like 8-10 rooms of interviewers each. Michigan students don't rush to NYC like they do at other schools, but that does not mean it's not available for those that want it. You keep implying that you've heard anecdotes about interview slots, and I'm not quite sure if you've actually heard that Michigan has limited slots for these firms or whether you're just assuming that because we only put about half as much of our class into NYC as Penn. Let me be clear - the slots are there for students who want them, probably no different than Penn (or NU, for that matter).
Second, it really is not a poor argument. It would be a poor one if all markets were created equal. As it is, our students at the median target NYC (and the rare few above it who want to return home to NYC), but that's about it. You see, when the GPAs required for better markets are noticeably higher and median kids can get NYC, you have a ton of students above-median that could have NYC if they had wanted, but instead opt to go to better markets. So what you're now suggesting is that firms, who seem to find students at similar points within each class to be of comparable or sufficient "quality" as to hire them, would (1) suddenly only take the top students at Michigan who begin trying to get NYC biglaw, (2) the other, median students who were just as "qualified" as the Penn students still being hired will suddenly be left out, while (3) these median "quality" Penn students will continue to get the same number of spots? Color me extremely skeptical, but I'm pretty damn positive that the recruiting pipeline within firms would adjust to bring in more higher "quality" students at the expense of other schools where they were getting average "quality" students.
Your big focus seems to be on the established numbers, but the number of students going to a market aren't dictated by the number of slots a firm has for these students; to the contrary, the firms dictate these slots based on how many students are interested in each market from each school. If those interests change, there's no reason to think that firms won't make room for higher "quality" students from Michigan. I don't buy your argument for a second, and I think we can both see the gaping holes in it.