GULC versus GW Forum

[PomasThynchon]

^not-so-subtle anti-GULC trolling

Cognitive dissonance I'm sure. I only say that because I have yet to hear back from GULC. If I did get in, though...hrm...

[bender18]

Lol, yeah the choice between GW w/106k and GULC is not an easy one. I guess part of it depends on GULC's need-based aid. I know they have a soft March 1st deadline to fill out the needaccess form, but since their yellow sheet is still not out yet, I assume I'll still be in the running for need-based aid if I complete everything this weekend... right?

EDIT: I'm pretty sure they give you around two weeks after you've been admitted (if you're a late admit) so nevermind.

[JTMan]

Have you sent or are you going to send GULC a loci?

Have not sent. I am planning on sending one.

The reason I would take GULC/Cornell/NU (the T14's I still have a shot at) over GW with 105k would be a better shot at NYC/CA. I'm not sure it's worth it but I think at this point I'd take NU at sticker, the others I would hesitate and probably do GW.

I agree with this. I'm not sure if I would take GULC/USC/UCLA/Vanderbilt over GW 106k, but I would strongly consider Cornell and almost certainly take Michigan.

Just out of curiousity why would you most certainly take Michigan over 106K at GW? That's my decision right now.

[bk1]

Just out of curiousity why would you most certainly take Michigan over 106K at GW? That's my decision right now.

I would because I would much rather be working in CA, and NYC to a lesser extent, than DC. I think both options are viable, but Michigan will surely entail more risk whereas paying back the 100k in loans from GW is much more feasible if you end up in a poor job (e.g. one that pays 40-50k/year).

[3ThrowAway99]

Trash that GULC letter. If it was by email. delete it and act like it never happened.

??? Did you have a problem with an email from GULC giving you bad info?

[dood]

But it's nowhere close to the same odds. GULC placed almost twice the percentage of its class in biglaw. Median at GULC still has a shot at biglaw.

oh, the entire internets told me differently

You really think the ability to answer 3 more questions on the LSAT is going to make a drastic difference in one's ability to succeed at the school?

no u sphincter that was a joke. but btw, malcom gladwell's "research" says 165 is the threshold, only drastic difference was people below and above that, but no discernible difference between a 169 and 174.

[FalafelWaffle]

something like the T18, but the difference between WUSTL/GW and USC is huge.

I'm tired of this horseshit. There is no T18. Everything outside the T14 (and arguably the the bottom of the T14) is regional anyway. Your employment prospects might be "better" at USC, but that's moot if you don't want to live in SoCal or maybe elsewhere in California. The rankings are not an even spread--Vanderbilt is *closer* in placement to the schools ranked higher than it than it is to the schools ranked lower-but that doesn't make T18 any less of an arbitrary distinction. I can hear Vanderbilt on a large scholarship over most non-HYSCCN, but you're drawing arbitrary barriers. And if you look at stats like the NLJ250, you would know that T17, while still silly, is a more meaningful distinction than T18. USC significantly outperforms most of the 19-30 range, but whereas Vandy is closer to a low-end T14 than the 15-30s, USC is closer to GW/BU/BC (maybe WUSTL and UIUC, depending on the year) than any T14 school. Look at their placement for God's sake. USC is not a Top 20, or a Top 18, it's just a *very* strong regional school that's about, outside of the T14, as good as it gets if you want California.

Vandy has some meaningful national pull, and it's really the lowest-placed school to have significant reach outside its region. UCLA is ranked 15, but I still wouldn't go there over BU for east coast. Regional, regional, regional. USC for SoCal, BU/BC for Boston, GW for DC, WUSTL for the midwest. All those schools place outside their major markets, but you have to do well their.

The USC dropoff is not a "myth" but a false bill of goods. If you want a JD and good job prospects anywhere, don't care where, maybe go to USC over GW/BU/BC. But most people have regional preferences, which trump 15-30 rankings. Fucking tired of this shit. You can't divorce regional placement/market stranglehold from national reach. Case in point: I want to work in DC or New York. In that case, USC is not a better option for me than GW, despite this fictitious "drop off" that doesn't account for individual market preference. The fact that USC may place better in Southern California than, say BC does in Boston is meaningless if you don't want to work in California. Do people ever think before they propagate this T18 shit?

[bk1]

[USC/T18 rant]

You're smoking a load of crack. Let's go with USC's NLJ250 ranking:

2005 - 28th (Fordham/BC/BU/ND all placed better, but they all also placed better than UCLA/UT)
2006 - 20th (No hard data other than an NLJ article saying this)
2007 - 14th (Behind all non-Yale T14's but ahead of UCLA/Vandy/UT)
2008 - 14th (Same as 2007)
2009 - 15th (Got leapfrogged by Vandy, still solidly better than UCLA)
2010 - 19th (For the first time in at least 5 years ends up behind UCLA, and by a decent chunk, but is just behind Vandy and ahead of UT still)

I might be inclined to argue that UCLA (possibly UT) is the odd man out of the T18, but it definitely isn't USC. Nobody is saying that you should go to USC if you don't want to work in CA, that would be stupid. And of course T18 is basically arbitrary but people are going to make these distinctions no matter what and I think jobprospects-wise that T18 is about as good as you will get (roughly 50% or more chance at Art 3/NLJ250, pre-ITE). If you are arguing from an NLJ250 data perspective, your argument is a load of shit.

However, I tend to agree with you on the basis of ITE and the fact that schools/markets suffered disparately that USC is now closer to the schools below it than it used to be. Being able to place in NYC is a huge boon for schools like Fordham/BU/BC and heck even Vandy whereas USC is forced to weather the storm while trying to place in CA/SoCal.

If you look at the data, you would realize how stupid your argument is. No need to strawman this about the regionality of schools, I'm pretty sure everybody already understands this and nobody is going to USC (or UCLA/UT for that matter) with dreams of national placement. With ITE I'd say you're safer off with T12 or T13 or T6 or T10 or whatever distinction you want to place there, but when looking at the data available, I your argument makes no sense.

[Marionberry]

[USC/T18 rant]

You're smoking a load of crack. Let's go with USC's NLJ250 ranking:

2005 - 28th (Fordham/BC/BU/ND all placed better, but they all also placed better than UCLA/UT)
2006 - 20th (No hard data other than an NLJ article saying this)
2007 - 14th (Behind all non-Yale T14's but ahead of UCLA/Vandy/UT)
2008 - 14th (Same as 2007)
2009 - 15th (Got leapfrogged by Vandy, still solidly better than UCLA)
2010 - 19th (For the first time in at least 5 years ends up behind UCLA, and by a decent chunk, but is just behind Vandy and ahead of UT still)

I might be inclined to argue that UCLA (possibly UT) is the odd man out of the T18, but it definitely isn't USC. Nobody is saying that you should go to USC if you don't want to work in CA, that would be stupid. And of course T18 is basically arbitrary but people are going to make these distinctions no matter what and I think jobprospects-wise that T18 is about as good as you will get (roughly 50% or more chance at Art 3/NLJ250, pre-ITE). If you are arguing from an NLJ250 data perspective, your argument is a load of shit.

However, I tend to agree with you on the basis of ITE and the fact that schools/markets suffered disparately that USC is now closer to the schools below it than it used to be. Being able to place in NYC is a huge boon for schools like Fordham/BU/BC and heck even Vandy whereas USC is forced to weather the storm while trying to place in CA/SoCal.

If you look at the data, you would realize how stupid your argument is. No need to strawman this about the regionality of schools, I'm pretty sure everybody already understands this and nobody is going to USC (or UCLA/UT for that matter) with dreams of national placement. With ITE I'd say you're safer off with T12 or T13 or T6 or T10 or whatever distinction you want to place there, but when looking at the data available, I your argument makes no sense.

"u mad" would have sufficed.

[dcgirl1013]

Im really surprised at the reponses in this thread. While that is a good scholly offer, GW gives everyone with a 167 or 168 lsat and a high gpa that offer. Last time I applied, I got it and I was pretty much an auto-reject at gulc.

That is definitely not true... Look at the GW board there are many people with high GPAs and above a 167-168 who got nothing from GW!

[FalafelWaffle]

[USC/T18 rant]

You're smoking a load of crack. Let's go with USC's NLJ250 ranking:

2005 - 28th (Fordham/BC/BU/ND all placed better, but they all also placed better than UCLA/UT)
2006 - 20th (No hard data other than an NLJ article saying this)
2007 - 14th (Behind all non-Yale T14's but ahead of UCLA/Vandy/UT)
2008 - 14th (Same as 2007)
2009 - 15th (Got leapfrogged by Vandy, still solidly better than UCLA)
2010 - 19th (For the first time in at least 5 years ends up behind UCLA, and by a decent chunk, but is just behind Vandy and ahead of UT still)

I might be inclined to argue that UCLA (possibly UT) is the odd man out of the T18, but it definitely isn't USC. Nobody is saying that you should go to USC if you don't want to work in CA, that would be stupid. And of course T18 is basically arbitrary but people are going to make these distinctions no matter what and I think jobprospects-wise that T18 is about as good as you will get (roughly 50% or more chance at Art 3/NLJ250, pre-ITE). If you are arguing from an NLJ250 data perspective, your argument is a load of shit.

However, I tend to agree with you on the basis of ITE and the fact that schools/markets suffered disparately that USC is now closer to the schools below it than it used to be. Being able to place in NYC is a huge boon for schools like Fordham/BU/BC and heck even Vandy whereas USC is forced to weather the storm while trying to place in CA/SoCal.

If you look at the data, you would realize how stupid your argument is. No need to strawman this about the regionality of schools, I'm pretty sure everybody already understands this and nobody is going to USC (or UCLA/UT for that matter) with dreams of national placement. With ITE I'd say you're safer off with T12 or T13 or T6 or T10 or whatever distinction you want to place there, but when looking at the data available, I your argument makes no sense.

My point is that the signifier "T18" makes no sense. USC is still a regional school in the extreme, and you can't quantify that it is objectively "better" for employment in the same way that Harvard would be, because a USC degree does not have cross-market power. Without that cross-market power, "superior placement" is moot to anyone not interested in that market. It may be closer to the T14 in terms of students getting certain jobs, but what's the point when the region is more limited? USC is a T20/25 (I hate that term but...) in glorified T14(ish) clothing. It is a regional school that places as well as many T14 schools, but it is still a regional school. I really don't get it, I really don't

[FalafelWaffle]

[USC/T18 rant]

You're smoking a load of crack. Let's go with USC's NLJ250 ranking:

2005 - 28th (Fordham/BC/BU/ND all placed better, but they all also placed better than UCLA/UT)
2006 - 20th (No hard data other than an NLJ article saying this)
2007 - 14th (Behind all non-Yale T14's but ahead of UCLA/Vandy/UT)
2008 - 14th (Same as 2007)
2009 - 15th (Got leapfrogged by Vandy, still solidly better than UCLA)
2010 - 19th (For the first time in at least 5 years ends up behind UCLA, and by a decent chunk, but is just behind Vandy and ahead of UT still)

I might be inclined to argue that UCLA (possibly UT) is the odd man out of the T18, but it definitely isn't USC. Nobody is saying that you should go to USC if you don't want to work in CA, that would be stupid. And of course T18 is basically arbitrary but people are going to make these distinctions no matter what and I think jobprospects-wise that T18 is about as good as you will get (roughly 50% or more chance at Art 3/NLJ250, pre-ITE). If you are arguing from an NLJ250 data perspective, your argument is a load of shit.

However, I tend to agree with you on the basis of ITE and the fact that schools/markets suffered disparately that USC is now closer to the schools below it than it used to be. Being able to place in NYC is a huge boon for schools like Fordham/BU/BC and heck even Vandy whereas USC is forced to weather the storm while trying to place in CA/SoCal.

If you look at the data, you would realize how stupid your argument is. No need to strawman this about the regionality of schools, I'm pretty sure everybody already understands this and nobody is going to USC (or UCLA/UT for that matter) with dreams of national placement. With ITE I'd say you're safer off with T12 or T13 or T6 or T10 or whatever distinction you want to place there, but when looking at the data available, I your argument makes no sense.

My point is that the signifier "T18" makes no sense. USC is still a regional school in the extreme, and you can't quantify that it is objectively "better" for employment in the same way that Harvard would be, because a USC degree does not have cross-market power. Without that cross-market power, "superior placement" is moot to anyone not interested in that market. It may be closer to the T14 in terms of students getting certain jobs, but what's the point when the region is more limited? USC is a T20/25 (I hate that term but...) in glorified T14(ish) clothing. I really don't get it, I really don't

In the latest NLJ250 stats, BU outperformed USC by 5 percentage points, BC by more than that, two schools it is ranked higher than, and considered objectively "better" than. And it did not fare that significantly better than GW (which has far, far more government positions available to its students anyway). So again, I do not understand the overrating of USC. Granted, this does not necessarily mean that firms now like BU better, but that perhaps (more likely) that the California market has been slower to recover. But even IF it's just because Cali is slower to recover, it's still part of the objective employment reality!

[bk1]

My point is that the signifier "T18" makes no sense. USC is still a regional school in the extreme, and you can't quantify that it is objectively "better" for employment in the same way that Harvard would be, because a USC degree does not have cross-market power. Without that cross-market power, "superior placement" is moot to anyone not interested in that market. It may be closer to the T14 in terms of students getting certain jobs, but what's the point when the region is more limited? USC is a T20/25 (I hate that term but...) in glorified T14(ish) clothing. I really don't get it, I really don't

Some people act as if they are location agnostic. Some people have lived in multiple places and are okay with living in either of them. T18 is a delineation along employment lines, nothing more. Even the T14 are regional. Nobody is saying otherwise but you seeming to be butthurt that we don't have a "top school breakdown by region" makes no sense.

Nobody is advocating taking USC if you aren't okay with SoCal, but if you are okay with either Texas or SoCal (as an example), USC and UT are roughly peers.

[FalafelWaffle]

My point is that the signifier "T18" makes no sense. USC is still a regional school in the extreme, and you can't quantify that it is objectively "better" for employment in the same way that Harvard would be, because a USC degree does not have cross-market power. Without that cross-market power, "superior placement" is moot to anyone not interested in that market. It may be closer to the T14 in terms of students getting certain jobs, but what's the point when the region is more limited? USC is a T20/25 (I hate that term but...) in glorified T14(ish) clothing. I really don't get it, I really don't

Some people act as if they are location agnostic. Some people have lived in multiple places and are okay with living in either of them. T18 is a delineation along employment lines, nothing more. Even the T14 are regional. Nobody is saying otherwise but you seeming to be butthurt that we don't have a "top school breakdown by region" makes no sense.

Nobody is advocating taking USC if you aren't okay with SoCal, but if you are okay with either Texas or SoCal (as an example), USC and UT are roughly peers.

I'm not trying to shit on USC, I know people who go there, and it's a good school. I just think people have too much of a hard-on for it. T18 is not really a meaningful delineation, but if that's how people want to sort it then ok

[bk1]

In the latest NLJ250 stats, BU outperformed USC by 5 percentage points, BC by more than that, two schools it is ranked higher than, and considered objectively "better" than. And it did not fare that significantly better than GW (which has far, far more government positions available to its students anyway). So again, I do not understand the overrating of USC.

By this same logic, UT/Vandy are all overrated as well and yet somehow Georgetown/UCLA aren't?

[bk1]

I'm not trying to shit on USC, I know people who go there, and it's a good school. I just think people have too much of a hard-on for it. T18 is not really a meaningful delineation, but if that's how people want to sort it then ok

T18 is probably a more meaningful distinction of employment prospects than T14.

[FalafelWaffle]

In the latest NLJ250 stats, BU outperformed USC by 5 percentage points, BC by more than that, two schools it is ranked higher than, and considered objectively "better" than. And it did not fare that significantly better than GW (which has far, far more government positions available to its students anyway). So again, I do not understand the overrating of USC.

By this same logic, UT/Vandy are all overrated as well and yet somehow Georgetown/UCLA aren't?

I never said they're not. I just think T18 is blatant USC trolling. I think Georgetown is overrated to DC. I think GULC is not only a huge school, which detriments it, but has a lot of DC or bust types who strike out at OCI because they only interview with DC firms. UCLA place far better than USC but is similarly limited. If I didn't get T14 I would happily settle for Vandy over the rest of the 15-18

[bk1]

I never said they're not. I just think T18 is blatant USC trolling. I think Georgetown is overrated to DC. I think GULC is not only a huge school, which detriments it, but has a lot of DC or bust types who strike out at OCI because they only interview with DC firms. UCLA place far better than USC but is similarly limited. If I didn't get T14 I would happily settle for Vandy over the rest of the 15-18

Did you not read where USC placed better than UCLA for 4 years in a row?

Did you not read where Vandy placed comparably to USC in the latest data?

I can understand taking Vandy over USC if you want the south or NYC, but to argue that it has a significant employment advantage reeks of bias.

[FalafelWaffle]

In the latest NLJ250 stats, BU outperformed USC by 5 percentage points, BC by more than that, two schools it is ranked higher than, and considered objectively "better" than. And it did not fare that significantly better than GW (which has far, far more government positions available to its students anyway). So again, I do not understand the overrating of USC.

By this same logic, UT/Vandy are all overrated as well and yet somehow Georgetown/UCLA aren't?

I never said they're not. I just think T18 is blatant USC trolling. I think Georgetown is overrated to DC. I think GULC is not only a huge school, which detriments it, but has a lot of DC or bust types who strike out at OCI because they only interview with DC firms. UCLA place far better than USC but is similarly limited. If I didn't get T14 I would happily settle for Vandy over the rest of the 15-18

My larger point is that there's no real purpose to comparing UCLA/UT/Vanderbilt/USC to similarly placing schools like BU/BC/GW because none of them (with exceptions maybe are national). With these schools, you pick based on where you want to live. Objective comparisons of employment are only useful if you're location agnostic-and if you are great, but I don't understand the mindset. If you're location agnostic, sure, pick UCLA over GW or BC. But if you want NY, none are sure bets but the east coast schools are better. Most people I know are not location agnostic, and read too much into the rankings. I see a lot of n00b posters who read too much into the number rankings without looking at region, which is a huge problem with the US News rankings

[FalafelWaffle]

I never said they're not. I just think T18 is blatant USC trolling. I think Georgetown is overrated to DC. I think GULC is not only a huge school, which detriments it, but has a lot of DC or bust types who strike out at OCI because they only interview with DC firms. UCLA place far better than USC but is similarly limited. If I didn't get T14 I would happily settle for Vandy over the rest of the 15-18

Did you not read where USC placed better than UCLA for 4 years in a row?

Did you not read where Vandy placed comparably to USC in the latest data?

I can understand taking Vandy over USC if you want the south or NYC, but to argue that it has a significant employment advantage reeks of bias.

You are correct in that I am biased , but my main point is that these rankings are very limited and thus tell you very little unless you're location agnostic. HYSCCN comparisons of BigLaw employment are useful because they are universal and you can take them to any market. Most of the rest, not so much. So when people say USC places better than schools ranked below it, I agree. If you just want A job, anywhere, fine go to USC. But it doesn't make it "better" than BU/BC because it's limited to a region. Regional employment stats are more important, and people overemphasize the NLJ data points.

[bk1]

Regional employment stats are more important, and people overemphasize the NLJ data points.

I agree, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with grouping the top placing schools regardless of region.

[Marionberry]

I am location agnostic, in that I do not know if locations exist or not.

[FalafelWaffle]

Regional employment stats are more important, and people overemphasize the NLJ data points.

I agree, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with grouping the top placing schools regardless of region.

Conceded. But it makes it that much harder for me to tell my parents that GW is better because I want to live in DC or NY.

[FalafelWaffle]

I am location agnostic, in that I do not know if locations exist or not.

Conspiracy of cartographers, is all.

[bk1]

Conceded. But it makes it that much harder for me to tell my parents that GW is better because I want to live in DC or NY.

I see nothing wrong with admitting you are taking a lowered absolute percentage in job prospects for an increased percentage in the area you want to be (I very well may be doing the same thing).